or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 9

post #241 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris_saunders View Post

after reading this thread, i have a huge headache. Some of you say with a 40 inch lcd 1080p wont do anything for you, then some more people chime in and say BS, it does matter. WTF, I can probably afford a 1080p but if its not going to matter with a 40 inch lcd watching at 8 feet, why should i spend the extra $500, when I can go and buy a PS3 instead.... CNET claims it wont matter at 8 feet and 40 inches, and it only matters after 50 inches. This whole debate is not being won by either side for me.... this sucks

For 40", 8 ft is assuming you have perfect 20/20 or slightly better. most people don't have superman's perfect vision.

For 50", it is 10 ft. but honestly from what i see with my non 20/20 vision. i barely see any difference even at 5 ft up close, whether it is 1080p 50" or 720p 50". but closer than 5 ft, i do see the detail difference. only my kids watch TV at 5 ft or closer.

i got the Panasonic 50" 720p for $1500. i watch my 50" at 10 ft. so 1080p would be a waste for me to spend an extra $2500. also, i heard TV SD signal on 1080p is not as good as on a 720p.
post #242 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris_saunders View Post

after reading this thread, i have a huge headache. Some of you say with a 40 inch lcd 1080p wont do anything for you, then some more people chime in and say BS, it does matter. WTF, I can probably afford a 1080p but if its not going to matter with a 40 inch lcd watching at 8 feet, why should i spend the extra $500, when I can go and buy a PS3 instead.... CNET claims it wont matter at 8 feet and 40 inches, and it only matters after 50 inches. This whole debate is not being won by either side for me.... this sucks


The best thing for you to do is go to the store and look at the two resolutions from your normal viewing distance(s). Don't worry to much about the image color, etc... look for the details in the picture- if you don't see a different in amount of detail go with the 720p. If you are going to connect your new television to your computer and want a higher resolution then go with the 1080p. I got a 50" Sony- it's 720p and I am extremely happy with it, even connected to my PC. I don't play a lot of PC games so I don't need 1080p resolution when I can use my 21" monitor for anything that does.
I hope this helps.
post #243 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsforum2005 View Post

For 40", 8 ft is assuming you have perfect 20/20 or slightly better. most people don't have superman's perfect vision.

For 50", it is 10 ft. but honestly from what i see with my non 20/20 vision. i barely see any difference even at 5 ft up close, whether it is 1080p 50" or 720p 50". but closer than 5 ft, i do see the detail difference. only my kids watch TV at 5 ft or closer.

i got the Panasonic 50" 720p for $1500. i watch my 50" at 10 ft. so 1080p would be a waste for me to spend an extra $2500. also, i heard TV SD signal on 1080p is not as good as on a 720p.

but what about 720p scaling a 1080i source? Wont a 1080i source look alot better on 1080p set no matter what the size or distance?
post #244 of 1467
Quote:


Wont a 1080i source look alot better on 1080p set no matter what the size or distance?

No. The limiting factor is your eyes, not the display. You can put a 5000p image on a 5000p display and your eyes still won't resolve more than ~720p resolution from a 50" screen at 10 feet.
post #245 of 1467
So for someone like me, who is looking to upgrade from my 27" tube to a 42" lcd or plasma, should I not waste the money on a 1080p system? I sit 7-8' away.
post #246 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by captclueless View Post

So for someone like me, who is looking to upgrade from my 27" tube to a 42" lcd or plasma, should I not waste the money on a 1080p system? I sit 7-8' away.

Assuming you have average vision (20/20), you will get no benefit of 1080p [over 720p] on a 42" screen beyond 8 feet.
post #247 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by captclueless View Post

So for someone like me, who is looking to upgrade from my 27" tube to a 42" lcd or plasma, should I not waste the money on a 1080p system? I sit 7-8' away.

A bigger benefit to you and your HT is to increase your screen size to a good 50"er.
post #248 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfdtv View Post

Assuming you have average vision (20/20), you will get no benefit of 1080p [over 720p] on a 42" screen beyond 8 feet.

This is an interesting article http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...07-part-4.html
post #249 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

This is an interesting article http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...07-part-4.html

just a feel good article because they have the latest 1080p. just as someone pointed out for a 50" or smaller screen even at 5080p sitting at 10 ft for 20/20 vision people, you will not see much of a significant different.

in this article's conclusion, they admit this:

"Of course, you don't need to have a 1080p display to have a great image. In fact, we're happy to concede that in most cases, with most material, there are many variables, starting from basic calibration, the environment (your room), yada yada, that are far more important than having a real 1080p display. In fact, most of us don't own a 1080p display for reasons of price and the move of the technology curve, first generation issues, etc."

"the environment (your room), " they don't want to say distance matter. they try to sugar coated. i will concede that if you are buying a TV at 60" or greater, you should get 1080p. I also concede that these guys are trying too hard to sell 1080p for TV at 50" or smaller".

i don't think most people will pay an extra $2500 for barely any benefits. throw away $2500, just so i can tell people i have this number 1080p or my 50" TV still looks crystal sharp at 4-5 ft. and that my neck ache because i have to move it side to side to watch the whole screen at 4 ft. LOL
post #250 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsforum2005 View Post

just a feel good article because they have the latest 1080p. just as someone pointed out for a 50" or smaller screen even at 5080p sitting at 10 ft for 20/20 vision people, you will not see much of a significant different.

in this article's conclusion, they admit this:

"Of course, you don't need to have a 1080p display to have a great image. In fact, we're happy to concede that in most cases, with most material, there are many variables, starting from basic calibration, the environment (your room), yada yada, that are far more important than having a real 1080p display. In fact, most of us don't own a 1080p display for reasons of price and the move of the technology curve, first generation issues, etc."

"the environment (your room), " they don't want to say distance matter. they try to sugar coated. i will concede that if you are buying a TV at 60" or greater, you should get 1080p. I also concede that these guys are trying too hard to sell 1080p for TV at 50" or smaller".

i don't think most people will pay an extra $2500 for barely any benefits. throw away $2500, just so i can tell people i have this number 1080p or my 50" TV still looks crystal sharp at 4-5 ft. and that my neck ache because i have to move it side to side to watch the whole screen at 4 ft. LOL

Where did you read that they owned a 1080p set? You could not be talking about me, I certainly do not have the latest 1080p display. Viewing distance and display size RECOMMENDATIONS vary from web page to web page. Some use ratios (1.5 x height) some display size and distance.

The article was presented to demonstrate 1080p, i etc. It is easy to understand and they provided visuals to demonstrate their point.

If you are going to quote part, shouldn't you post their entire conclusion? 'But, the point remains, if we narrow down the issue to a single parameter, that of resolution, aside from possible future displays that are integer multiples of 1920 x 1080 (serving to diminish pixel structure and improve the performance of scaled image output from lower resolution formats), 1080p is king, period."

I did not read that the article was trying to sell anything except their view on why 1080p is important. They certainly did not push a technology or size display.

BTW, the premium for a 1080p LCD is $500 or less. Where did you come up with $2,500? Plasma?
post #251 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nmlobo View Post

BTW, the premium for a 1080p LCD is $500 or less. Where did you come up with $2,500? Plasma?

I was wondering that too - but check the link to cleveland plasma at the bottom of the page. The premium for plasma is $600-$700 and that might go down by the time they are actually shipping.

So, no idea what he was talking about.
post #252 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post

I was wondering that too - but check the link to cleveland plasma at the bottom of the page. The premium for plasma is $600-$700 and that might go down by the time they are actually shipping.

So, no idea what he was talking about.

I'm not sure either. Maybe he is thinking about prices 12 or 18 months ago. I did a seach and I can find 46" 768 and 1080p LCDs within $300 of each other - so he certainly was not talking about LCDs either. I don't believe there was that high a difference then - I don't remember it being that large.
post #253 of 1467
The 720p sets are better like one said here the max resolution of the eye is 720p at 10 feet for a 50 inch set.
There are too many filler pixels in the 1080p sets for the 720p signals.
The 720p signal has the most frames per second and since 720p sets don't have to scale this image it makes....

720p #1

And converts 1080p to the max resolution of the eyes at a normal distance.

Both sets have to scale the other not native signal, but 720p has faster frames and delivers more pixels per secon

1080p/24 49766400 pixels per second
720p/60 55296000 pixels per second.

"Summary: It is not the pixels in a still frame that counts - still video is boring. It is the pixels per second delivered to viewers that matters."

So 1080p is not king. It depends on what signal you wish not be scaled.
It is easier to cross convert 1080i/p to 720p than to upscale 720p to 1080p.
Try to upconvert a 480i DVD to 1080... doesn't look 1080 does it?
Now, down convert a 1080p blue ray disk to 480i... that will be the best darn 480i you ever seen.
You get a more accurate down conversion than an upconversion.

1080p sets have to add 360 v and 640 h to the 720p/60 signal.

You can argue back that 720 sets throw out information, but again, that resolution is wasted resolution.

Either way, 1080p converted to 720p on a 720p set, gives you a more real 720p that is closer to the real 720p...........than 720p converted to 1080p would be to a true 1080p......... on a 1080p set.

the 1080p claims of domination do not sit well with those who prefer more frames per second. Actually it is which you prefer, in reality, this 720/768p vs 1080p should be called a wash. You will never settle this debate.

Nmlobo
the article you provided is clearly from a 1080p advocate because he never mentions the 720p signal and never comments on the conclusive tests that proved no difference in side by side test, it appears his article is to combat the factual tests and processional tests that have been concluded and posted all over the net is I have quoted. Does not touch upon the smaller pixels of the 1080p set and why 720p sets will show more detail at a distance of 10 feet based upon the pixel size of 720p alone.

He uses bar code type illustrations that are a far reach from actual demonstrations.

Also from what I seen as pro 1080p proponent article, even he would seem to indicate that the 720p signal is better viewed on a 720p set because it is not up scaled..
It stated
"While the 480p native pattern is crisp and maintains full contrast, the scaled up versions aren't"

He ignores the face that 480 has an easier climb to 720p with less filler pixels, rather he draws up bar coded illustrations and mentions scaling artifacts.


Side by side tests are conclusive and shown no differences with the 1080i signal going into the 1080p next to the 768 one. The human is always the deciding and conclusive factor rather that what is on paper or demonstrated by other illustrations.

"We've done side-by-side tests between two 46-inch LCD HDTVs, one with 1366x768 resolution and the other with 1080p resolution, using the same 1080i source material, and it was extremely difficult for us to see any difference. It becomes even more difficult at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen."
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html


When they were up close they said it was
"was extremely difficult for us to see any difference"

As they moved back to 6 and a half feet (1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen) it became even "more difficult" than what they said was "extremely difficult"


"The good news is that amongst the 1080p sets they used (the 47-inch Westinghouse and the 50-inch Pioneer) the level of detail was "virtually identical." However, when they compared the image to sets with lower resolutions, they noticed it was harder to pick up on the differences in detail. Overall, they concluded it would be "practically impossible" to tell the difference between the image on a 1080p vs a 1080i or 720p. "

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/1080p/108...-it-213983.php

"Surely, you will not perceive any difference in image detail between 720p and 1080i/p HDTV material on the smaller sets from 10-feet away. You need to sit closer and feed your 1080p HDTV set with a good quality HD source to possibly start to see any difference."

http://www.practical-home-theater-gu...080p-HDTV.html

Also,
These tests were not conducted by 720p advocates, they were fair unbiased tests.
Look at the way the article you provided ended...

"1080p is king, period"
That clearly shows an biased test does it not?


Period... Do other sentences come after periods?

An obvious rebuttal by a 1080p advocate to the many tests conducted that stress viewing distances. He even admits it.

"Some will argue that if you are seated far away and/or the screen is not enormous, one won't "appreciate" the full detail of 1920 x 1080 (as compared to lower resolution TVs)"


Also never mentions seeing a real 720p/60 signal on a 720/60 TV.


The article labels itself as "Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity"
That says something in itself.
post #254 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Think about it!

Yes, please do that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Both sets have to scale, but 720p has faster frames and delivers more pixels per second.

1080p/24 49766400 pixels per second
720p/60 55296000 pixels per second.

"Summary: It is not the pixels in a still frame that counts - still video is boring. It is the pixels per second delivered to viewers that matters."

So 1080p is not king.

No matter how you look at it, that is an apples to oranges comparison. You are comparing film and video. For movies and episodic programming, you have this:

1080p24 = 49,766,400 pixels per second
720p24 = 22,118,400 pixels per second

For video, you have this:

1080i60 = 62,208,000 pixels per second
720p60 = 55,296,000 pixels per second

Above we're looking at unique pixels of picture information per second. With film-sources, the 24p frames are just sent once, and a few bytes (repeat flags) tell the MPEG-2 decoder which frames to repeat. With the figures above, it's pretty obvious why film telecined to 1080p24, as well as content acquired in actual 1080p24 (or 720p24) with HD cameras, requires significantly less bandwidth to transmit than video.
post #255 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

You can argue back that 720 sets throw out information, but again, that resolution is wasted resolution.

Either way, 1080p converted to 720p on a 720p set, gives you a more real 720p that is closer to the real 720p...........than 720p converted to 1080p would be to a true 1080p......... on a 1080p set. Think about it!

If I recall correctly 1080p converted to 720p may not always give you a better picture than a 720p to 1080i/p. This has to do with the scaler, a poor scaler is going to be poor no matter what. The scaler has to decide which pixels to drop when scaling down and if it's algorithm chooses the wrong one(s) it's going to look bad.
Not trying to poke holes in your argument, just wanted to see if anyone knows if I am remembering correctly.

Generally you are best off looking at the tv's you are interested in and getting the one that appears to have the best picture to you- especially at your real viewing distance(s). If you don't see a difference that justifies the price, go with 720p- or if you are also connecting a pc and need the high capable resolution then go 1080p.

I am not a PC gamer and have my computer connected to my 720p 50" tv. I am extremely happy with it (and it's resolution) from my normal viewing distances of 6-12 feet.
post #256 of 1467
I'm talking the best scalier on both sides....
You get a truer down conversion than an up conversion.
But you may not need the high resolution if you are at a normal distance.

Like I said.. it doesn't sit too well for those who prefer the 60 frame broadcast signal viewed without fillers, up scaling etc.

I know people that keep their set tops at 1080i for their 1080p sets. They take to incoming 720p signal from 60 frames to 30... then the TV's frame rate takes the 30 frame signal and pumps 30 frames at you twice.

The 720p/60 signal is 60 real frames 60 times a second, and like I said, people want to see that without scaling, the same way 1080p proponents wish to view their signal.

Viewing distance means a lot, the 720p people say normal distance and max resolution for the eye, and 1080p people have come back and said they wish to sit 6.5 feet from their screen.
I prefer 720p.. but, this should be called a wash... draw, you will never settle this debate because it's preference.

This debate is going like wildfire in other places, and a lot of 1080p owners never thought it was possible that 720p could be argued with 1080p.

They never took into consideration frames per second and max viewing distance of the eye for certain size sets.

You have 2 different signals and two different sets. One (720p) has more pixels per second and more than double the frames per second, the other( 1080p) has more pixels in a single frame but more than half less frames per second.

How you going to settle this? One car rides better and smoother one is faster? Cadillic or Transam?
The 720p set is designed for the 720/60 signal
1080 for the 1080p set.

Both sides have points, good ones. Again both sides should be respected... this should be called a draw.
post #257 of 1467
Quote:


You have 2 different signals and two different sets. One (720p) has more pixels per second and more than double the frames per second, the other( 1080p) has more pixels in a single frame but more than half less frames per second.

If you compare apples to apples, you never have more pixels per second with 720p. See my post above.

On the typical movie or episodic series shown during primetime hours, the 1080i channels deliver more than twice as much unique picture information per second as the 720p channels. The only time 720p even comes close is during video broadcasts, such as sports, where you have content actually acquired in native 720p60.
post #258 of 1467
What about the new Panasonic Plasmas at 1080p ?

Being new to all this is seems like now the Plasma makers are also switching to 1080p. Makes me think there is a valid reason for this and some day all LCDs and Plasmas will be 1080p

so if your buying a new TV get one with 1080p or you will be out dated in 4 years when Blue ray and HD DVD is 1080P and its everwhere.

This is what Two sales people at two different stores tried to tell me. Is getting 1080p and paying a little more a bad thing?

The new Panasonic plasmas an the MSRP were announced today

examples
TH-58PZ700U AND TH-50PZ700U (all 1080P) Is it wrong to get a 1080P plasma so your future proofed as the sales people would say? I read through this long thread and it sounds like you would never see the 1080p at 10', yet I see pansonic and other plasma makers working hard to add 1080p
post #259 of 1467
Like I said, I'm talking about a real 720/60 signal.
But it's still better to view all 720p signals on a 720p set.
We can go back & forth all day.... 60 frames VS 24... call it sports whatever you want.
The fact is it's there and you have all the facts about the limitations of the eye.

They are both great.

It's wash guys... I'll post more tomorrow.
post #260 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

Like I said, I'm talking about a real 720/60 signal.
But it's still better to view all 720p signals on a 720p set.
We can go back & forth all day.... 60 frames VS 24... call it sports whatever you want.
The fact is it's there and you have all the facts about the limitations of the eye.

They are both great.

It's wash guys... I'll post more tomorrow.

Is this some way you are trying to justify buying on the cheap, getting an HT-Lite TV and then claiming is has better PQ than those pesky expensive 1080p displays?

Of course you need to sit at proper viewing distances in relation to your screen size to enjoy all the benefits of 1080p. That's HT 101, and you could say the same for 768p as well. Some people sit so far away from their tiny screens they could've stayed w/analog TV's.
post #261 of 1467
After reading a few posts, and looking at this wonderful chart by the thread starter:
http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads...ance_chart.pdf
I've come to the following conclusion:

Suppose we have 2 TV's of the same size, one of them being 1080P and the other
being 720P. The 1080P TV will always appear bigger to the viewer because:

a. To achieve the same 720P Pixel Resolution on a 1080P set, a person would have
to sit closer to the TV, thus the image appears larger than that of the 720P set.

b. To get a 1080P Pixel Resolution on the 720P set, a person would have to sit
further away from the TV, thus making the image appear smaller than the 1080P set.


Something to think about. I won't get into it, but I calculated that the pixel density
of a 37 inch 1360x768 screen is almost exactly the same as that of a 52-inch 1920x1080
one. Sitting 7 feet away, I hardly notice any difference in picture quality, but the
52 inch sure is larger! It makes me wonder if a 1080P version of that same 37 inch
TV would allow me to sit closer to the TV, almost matching the perceived size of
the 52 inch (we won't get into depth cues here as it obviously makes a huge difference
too). Interesting stuff though. Almost makes you think that, outside of depth
perception, it would be smarter to buy the 1080P 37 inch TV and sit closer (save
a ton of cash) than the 52 inch 1080P set.
post #262 of 1467
HD lite is what sat and cable companies do to the 1080i signal. They give you 1035x1440i.
So 1080p sets scale that as well....

720p appears lite on a 1080p set , the same way 1080p may look on the 2160p sets about the come out.
But it's the max eye resolution at 10 feet for a normal size set. Get the right TV for it.
Nothing wrong with a 4 Cylinder Porsche engine, you don't put it in a garbage truck.
Yes you said you have to be at a right distance in order to see 1080p. But some people want to sit 10 feet away and get the max resolution of the eye, and this is better on a 720p set because of the size of each pixel.

Who is one to tell another where they want to sit?
Also the super bowl, the most watched event of the year was in 720p. Now if it was in 1080p/24, should I tell all my guests to ... OK all gather 6.5 feet from the set.
Sports, Lost, Desperate Housewives, are a few of the shows seen in 60 frame content, I see the difference.
Some people just want to see sports alone. It's a preference.

720p has it benefits. The 1080i signal serves as a kind of a hybrid signal, converts well to 720p and great to 1080p. But 720p is better on 720p than it is on 1080p sets.. I know, I had a 1080p flat panel.
This will just keep going on and really, I see it as a wash.
post #263 of 1467
The answer is always the same--Buy 1080p--sit close and buy MASSIVE!
post #264 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

The answer is always the same--Buy 1080p--sit close and buy MASSIVE!

BINGO!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!
post #265 of 1467
Nice try, don't think so... your 720p signal is not as good on that set , I seen it, and some people don't want to sit close.
60 fames is better than 24.

To watch more than double the frames per second and more pixels per second, it looks way better on the 720p set, and you can sit at a normal distance.

I like 720p, the 1080i signal is fantastic on that.
We can go back and forth... go ahead got all day!
post #266 of 1467
Quote:


Nice try, don't think so... your 720p signal is not as good on that set , I seen it, and some people don't want to sit close.
60 fames is better than 24.

Every 1080p display on the market outputs to the screen at 1080p60. That's right, what you see on the screen is 60 fps.

Now, the actual progressive source material on 1080i channels is never more than 24p, but the same is true for 90+% of all content on 720p60 channels as well, outside of ESPN-HD and ESPN2-HD.
post #267 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfdtv View Post

Every 1080p display on the market outputs to the screen at 1080p60. That's right, what you see on the screen is 60 fps.

Except the ones that output at 1080p/72 or 1080p/120, that is.
post #268 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post

But 720p is better on 720p than it is on 1080p sets.. I know, I had a 1080p flat panel.

But your experience with that one 1080p display should not be considered proof that 720p will always look better on a 720p display than on a 1080p display. Would you say that is a fair statement?
post #269 of 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sole_Survivor View Post


So 1080p is not king. It depends on what signal you wish not be scaled.
It is easier to cross convert 1080i/p to 720p than to upscale 720p to 1080p.



Think about it!

Cross convert sounds like a confused transvestite.
It's easier to scale 720p to 1080p than scale and deinterlace 1080i to 720p.
Throw 768p in the mix and and now you have to scale from 720p and nothing except maybe a computer is native.

With the small price premium (excluding current plasmas) it's a no brainer to buy 1080p now.
The brain reenters the picture when looking for a 1080p display with the better scaler, deinterlacer and 2:3 cadence detection.
post #270 of 1467
locomo, don't feed the troll

Although, I guess, one has to, these days, otherwise his FUD will influence every reader of this thread!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion