Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 35

What price did you pay? I was just in Best Buy and was checking out the 50" 50PX80U panny, I thought it looked great and next to the 1080p version I couldn't tell a difference. Plus, in my setup I'll be sitting 15ft away from the screen so I'm thinking 1080p is overkill.

anyway, they are trying to unload all of these sets for next year. Best buy I was in had it priced at 1099 compared to the 1499 for the 1080p version. I figure I should be able to find one under 1k shipped on internet somewhere

Believe it or not, I got it at Home Depot online - price at $999 - the 1080p at 42" would have cost me $500 more.

Thomas

sears has it for 899 through the weekend, you might can go back to HD and get them to price match? never knew HD sold TV's

After perusing 30+ pages on this thread, I'm still debating 720p vs 1080p! My viewing distance is between 8' and 9'. I'd love a 50/52" LCD but space and existing TV stand and cabinet only allows for a 32". Receiver and speakers are already upgraded. I watch satellite (now at 480p but eventually up to 1080i) and free OTA local channels. I seldom watch movies via PS2. I'm thinking a 720/768 will be more than enough, but want to future proof it, and now w/blu ray being the standard at 1080p......???????????thoughts? suggestions? Price difference between 720p and 1080p for a 32" is about $250/$300....
Onkyo TX-SR806
Polk Audio R50 fronts
Polk Audio CSR center
Polk Audio T15 surrounds

Sony PS2
JVC VHS
Dishnet 311 receiver (SD)
RCA D/A converter
Sony 32"/PIP Trintron SDTV

32" from 8' away is a relatively small screen. Personally I would say it's foolish for you to go with 1080p since the price difference seems to be a concern to you.

If the cost doesn't matter, get the 1080p just for the sake of getting it.

If the cost matters at all, I don't think you would ever be able to notice a difference at that size and distance, even if you had the two sets side by side.

There's no point in 1080p under about 40". You'd have to be 3 feet closer to even begin to tell the difference. The added pixels are meant to improve the experience on large displays but sadly many people use it for a pissing match or to upsell others on smaller displays. Save your money, as it will allow you to buy a better, larger TV when the day comes to move up.

You can't. Worry about BD when you have one to worry about--spending an extra $100-200 on a 32" TV isn't going to do a thing for you now, and really isn't going to do much for you later. Since you don't watch any HD content, it would even be worse in the short term to have more pixels crammed into a small space.

In a few years, when you've got more space and new furniture, add the money you saved now to your budget, upgrade, and move your 32" to a bedroom. Unless you're using it on a desk, 1080p at 32" is a waste of money.

Okay gang, Here's the good: I invested $10 and bought a stud finder and found out that yes indeed there are studs every 16" not 48" as originally thought! This opens up a new realm of possibility, specifically a 50"to 52" 1080p mounted on the wall (I'm leaning toward a Samsung 650)! And now the bad.......

the wall is an interior wall between the living room and the bathroom. Waterlines and electrical (GFI) wires run through the wall. The stud finder also picks up the "hot" 110VAC wiring w/in 4"-18".

Assuming the 110V wiring runs through the studs, would it be ok/safe/recommended to drill into the studs? Removing the center 4'X8' panel would be cumbersome and labor intensive and not something I'm willing to do. Having it done would prolly prove expensive....

FWIW - I agree I would prolly not be happy w/a 32" and like the a idea of a 50"/52" only nowthe viewing distance increases from 10' to 11.5' because it's a wall mount

I can tell the difference pretty easily between 1080p and 720p on 50" at up to 11'. If there is text or graphics on screen the 1080p set looks razor sharp while the 720p set looks out of focus. It's actually pretty obvious without even trying. The first thing I noticed when I hooked up my 50px80u was how soft the picture looked (and I was surprised, because everyone kept saying how you don't need 1080p on a 50" set).

Not unless your vision is substantially better than 20/20 or there's some other signal problem going on. The human eye at 20/20 simply can't do that. Nine feet with good eyes is possible.

If you're comparing 1080p with 720p settings on the same television, you have the unpredictability of a scaling operation thrown in and aren't making a true comparison from native format to native format.

Quality of the sets panel and processing are what you are seeing-not resolution.

No it's not.

OK, I'll throw my two cents in. Yes, Paul Clancy is correct. If it were possible for someone with 20/20 vision to compare two 50" TVs that are identical in every way except that one is displaying 720p and the other 1080p, at 11 feet it would be physically impossible for the human eye to resolve the difference. It's not up for debate, it's science.

Afraid so, in part, along with other issues. The 50px80u is a mediocre display at best--and in fact is marketed and reviewed as an "entry level" display. It is not well regarded for its picture quality, and many have knocked its scaling abilities and ineffective noise reduction.

There would be a significant picture quality difference between that and one of Panasonic's "real" plasmas, a Samsung, or a Pioneer properly set up. Unfortunately most feeds in electronics stores are designed to play to the lowest common denominator.

At that distance the normal human eye simply cannot resolve the difference in angular resolution. What it can do is pick up on other perceptual factors, like color fidelity, noise reduction, scaling performance, and contrast.

Absolutely.

No. All things being equal, there is zero difference, pixel for pixel, in perceived resolution. Angular resolution is angular resolution. Beyond that threshold, adding more pixels simply makes no difference. At all.

The softer text is a result of other onboard electronics showing their weaknesses, such as sharpness and noise reduction. At 11 feet, there is no difference, based on resolution, in the readability of text or the discernability of any other visual detail aspect.

Stindawg has never mentioned which 1080p set he's using for his side-by-side comparison, or even that he's doing a side-by-side comparison at all.

I'd put the text display of pio kuro 5080 against any 1080p set.

This question is for anyone who is willing to answer it. The more opinions the better.

I have been thinking of getting one of the new Panny plasma's when they come out. The 54 inch screen. I will sit 9 to 10 feet away from the screen.

Are all of you saying that I will NOT see a difference between the 720 and the 1080P at that distance?

If that is true then I may as well save the money and get the 720.

Is there any benefit at that distance in the 1080P?


Jim

The new 54" Panasonic displays are all 1080p resolution. If you want a 720p Panasonic, the largest you can go is 50".

Also, these days, 720p displays are mostly the entry level offerings. If you want the best processing and most features, you are usually looking at a 1080p display anyway. Realisitically this thread only has another year of two of life left in it, at least as far as displays above 32" are concerned. And below 32" there really aren't any offerings yet that I know of. So basically this will be the place to debate the resolution of 32" LCDs, and that's about it.

It's never been softened. That fact has always been part of the discussion. The original post was a 50" display at 11 feet. It is physically impossible for a normal eye to differentiate based on pixel count at that size and distance. Change the screen size and the distance and that fact may change.

That's correct, but as someone else has pointed out, that size is only available in 1080p. 9 feet at 54 inches is right on the edge, though, so I'd probably go with a good 1080p set in that situation, anyway.

The advantage you'll see is that if you ever rearrange your room or move, you will be able to place seating at a closer distance without problems.

Looking at up grading to a Panasonic 58in from a Panasonic 50in my viewing distance is 14 to 15 Ft will I see an improvement.Thought about moving furniture but would be weird configuration and have to run wires.

Upgrading to a bigger size is a no-brainer for an improved viewing experience. The fact that the 58" models are 1080p is just icing on the cake.

Actually you can still get a 720p 58" Panasonic commercial display, and at your distance it would be just fine. However, the consumer 58" models are both 1080p.

What is your current model? You will not see an improvement based on resolution, but you may get a substantially better picture if your existing panel is older than 2007.

Generally, but at 15 feet, the difference between 50" and 58" is probably not worth the expenditure on a new TV unless the old set is several years old. At 10 feet, it would be a worthwhile investment if it's a 50" 720p set he'd be upgrading from.

Sorry the Panasonic plasma is a TH-50PX-75U and TH-50PX600U we use them both for U-verse HD,Blu Ray and the old HD DVD.I would love to get closer to the picture.

I guess we'll have to just disagree on it then. A larger display is a larger display no matter your distance. And at 15' you certainly want the biggest display you can get. I say, if he is in a position to be able to spend the money, a larger display is a perfectly fine investment.

The PX75 probably isn't worth upgrading. It's a decent set, and you won't benefit in your existing room(s) at 14+ feet from 1080p.

The PX60 is a slightly different story. A 2009 panel would deliver some better color and image processing, so you would step up. However, you still won't benefit from 1080p at 14+ feet, and the size increase is not terribly significant.

A 50" panel at 15 feet is about 16 degrees in angular size. A 58" panel only gets you two more degrees. Generally, for an upgrade to be worthwhile, it's got to be at least 5 degrees. In a living room environment, to scale well, 20-30 degrees is where you want to be (anything more than 30 degrees is horribly out of scale for the space unless it is a dedicated home cinema). Edit: as a further reference, a 42" TV at 8 feet, which is probably typical of many families, is 24.5 degrees across and a 50" is 29 degrees.

With those ideas in mind, make a "thumbs up" sign with both hands and extend your arms straight in front of you all the way. Place your thumbs, pointing toward the ceiling, next to each other so that they're touching. This is about 2.5 degrees of angular size. Stand right where you sit to watch TV and position your thumbs to line up with the edge of the screen. Those two thumb-widths are where the new screen edge would be (actually, half a degree wider, but it's a rough analogue). As you'll be able to tell, that's not a lot more size you'd be buying for your $1500+.

It's probably better to save your money until prices continue to fall, and save a bit more of it, to get a 70" panel in a few years' time, unless you feel the picture quality lacking on the PX60 or you feel that a size increase of less than two thumb-widths is worth your money. Obviously that's a personal decision.

A penetrating syllogism, to be sure, but if you've already got a display, then moving up to one that will only get you a little more than an inch of perceived size isn't necessarily a worthwhile investment. If there were no HDTV on the wall at all, I would agree that it would be preferable to get the biggest quality set you can afford.

A larger display has to be large enough to be worth blowing a sizable pile of cash. Would you recommend someone moving up from a 23" desktop monitor to a 24", all other factors excluded? It's the same apparent increase.

It is not the same apparent increase. A 24" monitor is about 4% larger than a 23" monitor, whereas a 58" display is 16% larger than a 50" display. That's just in diagonal size. In screen area the difference is 9% vs. 34.5%.

Would I recommend someone upgrade for 9% more screen? Probably not. For 34.5%? Certainly.

34.5% more screen real estate is significant. Sure, even if he went to a 100" projector and got 300% more real estate, he'd only be increase the perceived size by a few measly inches. So? It will be much, much, more noticeable than if he upgraded his desktop monitor from 23" to 28".

You're not paying attention to the limiting factor here: distance. The apparent size difference, slightly more than 1", is the same. But yes, just as I expected, you wouldn't tell someone to bump up for such an insignificant increase.

The same effect is in play here--you're advocating for this poor guy to go out and waste money. "Real estate" increases are just another form of the resolution argument--more inches, just like more pixels, don't matter if you're too far away to see them. You're dealing in similar increases to telling someone that they should go out and spend money upgrading from a 20" monitor to a 22" monitor because it's 22% more screen area. It's nonsense.

Screen area is a disingenuous metric, particularly when expressed in percentages. Moving from a 6" display to an 6.5" one is a 34% increase, too, but not a meaningful one.

Screen area increases are worthless because they are one-dimensional; the increase, particularly in weasel "percentage" form, conveys no information at all about what the effect is at the viewer. You can triple the screen area of a display, but if you're too far away for it to be meaningful, it won't do much for you. The only metric that matters in terms of comparing actual size increases is apparent size, and the only way to measure that is angular size, because it takes both screen size (your worthless "real estate" figures) and distance into account.

Humorously enough, this is why "percentage real estate" increases are totally worthless. Thanks for proving my point. A 100" projector would increase perceived size by over 15 degrees and would be a huge improvement. Size would be increased by double in the field of view, or the equivalent of going from a 20" LCD to a 40" LCD desktop monitor. You might call that a few measly inches in the field of view, but I promise you that everyone reading this would be able to tell the difference sitting at their desks.

True, apparent size in inches would only increase by about 8, but a few inches in the field of view is huge. But that's why apparent size is measured in degrees and not inches. A one degree object is a one degree object, whether it's a pencil held in front of your eye or the moon, hundreds of thousands of miles away.