Official "1080p Vs. 720p" Thread Discussion - Page 12

Having something that can't be discerned does not invalidate having it just for the sake of having it. Real visionaries see with more than just the eyes.

I sure would like to see the difference of 1080i and 1080p on a 1080p panel.
Have those with a BRD source tried it 1080i and 1080p and really seen a big difference?
It seems like we are talking framerate and processing that can make the difference with these two signals.
How many sources are actually higher than 1080i/60 (=1080p/24) anyway?
It just seems that 1080p without a 60FPS source has no real world advantage.

For the most part, a properly deinterlaced 1080/60i movie should provide the exact same display as a 1080/24p. According to Hometheater "if you have a 1080p TV that only accepts 1080i, you're not missing any resolution from the Blu-ray or HD DVD source. " http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

The fewer times a signal needs to be processed prior to display, the better - each processing step can add artifacts. The majority of HD is 1080i, which implies that a 1080p display does have an advantage. For example, a 720/768 display receiving a 1080i signal would require two processing steps - deinterlace and downscale to screen's native resolution. A 1080i input to a 1080p display would only need deinterlacing. One processor step.

Assuming a display does inverse telecine, you're absolutely right that there is no practical difference between 1080i and 1080p transmission for media content today. Even with gaming, both the Xbox360 and PS3 struggle to consistently output more than 30fps on the screen at 1080p.


Assuming, of course, that the display does 1:1 pixel mapping. Many 1080p displays do upscaling to add overscan.

I believe that 1:1 pixel mapping should be required by law.

I've read through the whole thread, and I've been convinced that for our purposes (10-foot viewing distance, 46" screen maximum size, mostly watching DirecTV HD and DVD's), we're just as well off, if not better, with a high-quality 720p flat screen than a 1080p screen. But how do I go about finding what HDTV I should actually buy --- i.e., one that has the best color accuracy, contrast, black levels, scaling/processing? These items don't seem to be "rated" in the published specs, and the reviews don't necessarily focus on these aspects of the overall PQ.

If anyone has advice they can offer on specific 720p models they would recommend in the 42"-46" range, I would appreciate hearing it. We have a 42" EDTV Panny plasma in our bedroom that we're happy with, but the new HDTV will be in the living room, which gets a lot more sunlight, and we were leaning toward an LCD in order to counter the effects of glare until someone on this thread suggested that any advantages that an LCD would have in that regard are outweighed by the better black-levels of plasmas in light conditions. (Also, I am aware that Panasonic has a new line of plasmas with some sort of anti-glare screens, but unfortunately, I think they come with side speakers that makes the 42" model just a bit too large for our enclosed space.)

Any suggestions?

^you are in my boat friend.

I think the new samsung lcd's are pretty sweet in terms of contrast ratio/brightness.

I said it before, I'll say it again. This is the AVS forum, people spend lots of extra money to get a minor improvement. 1280x720 or 1920x1080 should be a no brainer here.

fredwooch, there's more to the viewing distance than resolution. To achieve a more home theater experience, and at your 10' viewing distance, you should at a minimum be looking for a 50" display...60" would be real sweet...

My advice, do more reading & research on this Forum and others, and then armed w/this info go see the displays in person.

The new Samsung plasma has the new anti-glare filter but only comes in 720p. You can visit the Samsung website and view their pdf manual. You can also bring a flashlight and test it out in the store and see how much glare you get.

I've just come to this thread and, first of all, let me confess that I only read through page 6 and then skipped to the end. So, if I'm asking someone to address a question already asked, I apologize in advance.

But here's my quandary. I've got a 42" EDTV Panny Plasma that we view from about 10 feet out. I've been really happy with it but I'm seeing the prices on the 720p Panny Plasmas falling dramatically and was thinking of upgrading to their 58" Plasma. I've gotten the sense from what I've read that with a 50" display at my viewing distance I wouldn't be well served holding out for a 1080p set, but I'm really hooked on plasma and so don't think I could afford a 1080p plasma set in the 58" range anytime in the near future. So, what do you guys think? Is a 58" 720p plasma the right choice for me since holding out for a potentially affordable 50" 1080p plasma probably wouldn't make that much of a difference (or am I wrong about this?)?

By the way, I'm watching no games and I don't have an HD-DVD player (and won't until the price drops pretty dramatically). I watch quite a bit of SD, but about 40% Directv HD. I'm hoping that SD/HD ratio will switch in favor of HD as DTV brings those new HD channels online as they've been promising they would.

At 10 feet or less, you would get some benefit from 1080p on a 58-60" display. Check the prices from the sponsors, some are selling the new 58" Panasonic 1080p plasma for about $1200 less than Best Buy is asking for the old 58" 768p model. Around this time next year, you should be able to get a 58-60" 1080p plasma for the same price as a 58-60" 768p plasma today.

Be aware that DirecTV downconverts and degrades their high-definition, so you won't be able to take full advantage of any 1080p plasma with that service. However, even if you don't switch to a provider with full-resolution HDTV, like Comcast or Verizon FiOS, you can still get full 1080p on HD-DVD and Blu-ray disks.

I didn't think the 1080p 58" Panny plasma was even out yet. I clicked on a couple of the sponsors and couldn't find it.

It's not out yet. Some list it on their separate preorder pages. Check Cleveland Plasma.

The new Panasonic 1080p models are expected on ~April 27.

Thanks for the reference to Cleveland Plasma. It looks like they've got some good prices on Panny Plasmas. But I couldn't find the 58" 1080p unit. However, if the price they have for the 50" 1080p is about as low as it's going to be (since the prices on the other Panny's are about as low as you're going to find them), then I think both 1080p models are out of my price range by quite a bit. So, then, the only question is whether to wait a year and see if the prices drop far enough on the 1080p models or take the plunge with the 780p 58" plasma. Darn that 780p 58" is sure tempting at the prices I'm beginning to see for it (I'm thinking, by the way, of the 60u rather than the newer 75u)! This is going to be a tough choice.

This has been a very engaging thread. I can't say that all of sole_survivor's comments are correct (I don't know), but he certainly kept me reading. His observation that "The full resolution is the max resolution of the eye" is compeling as a practical matter.

It's obvious that there are those who will always want the best based on specs, and that's fine. How many of us have audio equipment with a frequency response well past any ability to hear it ? In any event, thanks to all. I certainly can't say that everything is crystal clear to me now, but I sure have more to think about now.

Chucko

When you click on the "Plasma TVs" link in the menu, notice the "Upcoming Items" item at the bottom. That's the one you want.


I suspect you are talking about the commercial TH-50PF9UK, yes? Best to ignore that one since its price is artificially high due to it being a bleeding edge model released last year to compete with the stratospherically priced Pioneer PRO-FHD1. You'll notice from the link I describe above that the new 58" 1080p consumer model is actually quite a bit cheaper than this commercial 50" 1080p display. And the 50" consumer model is even cheaper than that - by over $1k in fact.

Thanks! The TH-58PZ700U is still a bit more than I wanted to pay, but we're getting closer! And the 50" version is right in the ballpark of my price range, which makes me re-visit my earlier belief that a 50" 1080p plasma wouldn't be warranted for my viewing distance of about 10 feet. Is that the consensus or should I consider the 50" 1080p set? Or, maybe what I should do - this is what I'm beginning to think right now - is just sit tight and enjoy my 42" EDTV Panny Plasma for a few more months and watch to see what happens to the prices on these new 1080p sets.

On the other hand, I've been reading over more of the thread I skipped earlier (pages 7-10 or thereabouts) and am now wondering if a 720p even at 58" might not be a better compromise tv considering that a significant amount of our tv viewing over the next few years will still undoubtedly be in 480i. Here I'm thinking of some comments made earlier by, among others, sole survivor, regarding the 720p sets better ability to handle 480i signals.

A display's ability to handle non-native signals will depend almost completely on the quality of its video processing hardware. If you want to know more about the science involved here, you ought to check out the video processor forum on this site.

Suffice it to say that, you cannot just say that (720 - 480 = 240) < (1080 - 480 = 600) and so therefore the 720p set will be better because it has to "fill in less pixels". Not that I am saying anyone has said that specifically. But I see that sort of logic thrown around on this forum all the time.

Having said that, the current 1080p plasmas also happen to have lower contrast ratio than their 720p counterparts. And yes, that fact will effect the PQ as well. However that will come into play regardless of the signal type being fed to the display.

Thanks for dispelling the nonsensical BS/myth, mkoesel

Thanks. That makes a good deal of sense. I guess the bottom line here is that I need to wait until someone gets these sets in on the flooroom and make some direct comparisons with different inputs.

I realize I'm resurecting an argument over a week old, but as a person who actually gets paid to write scaling algorithms, I can give some information.

A scale-up algorithm using at least a 4x4 Kernel can give scaling that loses at most 3% of its contrast at maximum resolution. My experience is that such algorithms are exceedingly sharp at the slightly lower spacial frequencies, and can act like a slight sharpening filter, which you may or may not want. The tuning of the algorithm to provide the highest contrast at full resolution, without adding noticeable sharpening artifacts is the goal. There is no obvious stairstepping artifacts, or moire.

A simple 2x2 bilinear scaling kernel loses about 14% of the its contrast at maximum resolution. It also adds stairstepping artifacts on angled edges. However, it doesn't have any sharpening effects. If anything it has a slight softening effect. It can add slight moire, but only in extremely rare situations (high frequency test patterns).

The quality of scale-up from 720p to 1080p depends on the design of the filter. I remember seeing 6x3 or 5x3 size kernels advertised in the past, which will do a good job in one direction (probably the rows), and a poorer job along the verticals. Any kernel that has 4x4 or better is going to be awesome, provided it doesn't add too much extra sharpening (though you might be able to compensate by turning down the TV's sharpening setting).

I would much rather have a display that has to scale-up some signals, to one that has to scale-down others. It makes no sense to believe that because the eye can only resolve 720p signals at 10 feet on a 50" screen, that a 720p-native display is best, even for 1080 signals. This is crazy. Unlike the scale-up process, scale-down is both a lossy process, and extremely difficult to do without artifacts! Moire is almost a given -- it is exceedingly difficult to prevent in certain scenes and test patterns. Stairstepping artifacts are a possibility. And, if the processing tries to minimize moire, it can usually only do it by further softening the image.

No, use the highest resolution screen. If your eye can't resolve it, your eye will be the ultimate image processor, giving you an artifact-free view at the maximum resolution of your visual perception.

I also think that people who quote "maximum eye resolution" numbers don't understand that these aren't a hard limit. People's visual acuity are different, and many people will be able to see beyond this. Resolution describes the ability of the eye to distinguish 2 points of light, separated by an angular distance, as 2 distinct objects. When a person hits the resolution limit for his/her eyes, it does not mean that the 2 points of light look like one point. It means that they can no longer be disinguished as separate, but they may still look elongated, with a slight darkening between. Your eyes will be able to see the fact that they aren't a perfect single point for angles smaller than the resolution limit.

If we take this back the TV, our visual system is able to perceive things about a picture beyond the standard 60 arc seconds. It is quite easy for me to look at the planet Venus, and see that it is not a circular shape when in crescent. The size is about 60 arc seconds at that point. It is clearly not a point, and yet that is at the limit of resolution. This limit is not a hard number! It is also possible for me to notice that a 1080p panel has more natural edges, better high-rrequency contrast, and lack of any rainbow effects compared to a 720p panel. The differences may not be night and day, but they can be there. Also, sometimes kids sit on the floor and watch the screen. I want the TV to give the best possible picture at all viewing positions.

I also want bigger than a 50" TV. So, bring on the 1080p large-size plasmas! I'm waiting to buy one.

Thanks - that brought back some of my Image processing 301 brain cells back to life

Quotable ...


My eye happily resolves 1080p well at 8-9 feet, and I can't imagine running my PC desktop or my BluRay movies at 720p!

Is this something most people can do? I've never noticed any difference in the shape of Venus with naked eye observation.

That's because women are from Venus.

It depends on the phase of Venus. When it is gibous (and smaller), you won't be able to tell. But when it is in the crescent phase, yes it is clear to me that the planet is elongated in one direction. I can't tell any shape -- just that it definely is not circular, and that it has a long direction.

Venus is now in cresent, so over the next few weeks, try it out. Then check out the angular size for that day and compare.

First, thank you for the kind supportive comments that came in after all seemed to find respect for the other side having it's moments.

They just couldn't let it be after all agreed, this will prove my point on how far they will go to try to prove 1080p resolution supremacy.


audioNeil stated
" It is quite easy for me to look at the planet Venus, and see that it is not a circular shape when in crescent. The size is about 60 arc seconds at that point. "

LOL!
I will file this post forever.

I can tear your argument apart about what you called down scaling... first of all 1080i to 720p is really cross conversion, as some 1080p proponents try to call it down conversion. We will get back into filler pixels.... ETC.

You will get the best 480i signal you ever seen from a 720p or 1080 signal, (converting 1080 or 720p to 480) is far better than seeing 480i in 480i. You can down & cross convert, never fully up convert as up-scaling systems to 720p or 1080 have been proven to never match the actual true 720p or 1080i signal. Your point is flawed.

You're just re-hashing a 7 pages back debate.

The human eyes is always the deciding and conclusive factor rather than what is made up on paper or demonstrated by other illustrations.

What can be demonstrated with many pixels and other statements on paper proved to be a non factor in relation to the human eyes in conclusive tests.

Side by side tests are conclusive and shown no differences with the 1080i signal going into the 1080p next to the 768 one.


"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


As it was agreed that there are times that 720p is clearly better, to reach as far as you did simply proves my point on how far some 1080p proponents will go.
As far as resolution... the eye can pull in more, but there is a limit when you're talking about the resolution within a certain diagonal area at certain distances.


Once again at 10 feet, the pixels are bigger on a 720p set, which means the max resolution of the eye will appear better at this distance.


audioNeil stated
"No, use the highest resolution screen. "
LOL... then make sure you get the 2160p set when it comes out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2160p
That will give you a true 2160p with all signals going into it...LOL. It will do wonders for the the two fields of 240 (480i).


audioNeil stated
"If your eye can't resolve it, your eye will be the ultimate image processor, giving you an artifact-free view at the maximum resolution of your visual perception."

A statement lacking any professional verification sources.

Again the highest resolution screen uses filler pixels to many signals and does not fit the 720p signal like a glove as 720p set, and as I have quoted in many professional conclusive tests, cross conversion did not show any differences with 1080i signals on the 720p set next to the 1080p one at average distances.
Your above quote is not proven in fact and goes against the facts and results of the demonstrative and professional side by side tests that I have provided with links. All your doing is bringing back the same arguments from 7 pages back that went no where.


Your comments opinions and experiences such as "It is also possible for me to notice that a 1080p panel has more natural edges, better high-rrequency contrast" or "My experience is that"
....are bias and opinionated and and go against the many professional and conclusive side by side tests.

To go as far as mentioning kids sitting on the floor proves how far you will reach...
if you read through the thread it was agreed that 1080p sets will see benefits with a 1080p signal within 6 feet.


Also as far as bigger sets, lets not get into the facts about loss of quality when pixels get stretched for bigger screens. Do some research on that.
Again your reach was a classic, and proves my point once again, and this is not a knock to those to whom we all agreed to disagree.
Nice try... or reach. To be honest I never thought one would reach that far.
If you really think a neutral person reading this can't see that, makes you extremely comical. As I said this to another post before....and as we seen some of the comments starting to come in after both sides appeared to respect the other side.
Because it obvious, it would be more of an insult for any 720p proponent to answer you back after this point.

ashutoshsm stated
"My eye happily resolves 1080p well at 8-9 feet, and I can't imagine running my PC desktop or my BluRay movies at 720p!"


It is amazing how 1080p proponents resolve 1080p at 8 feet, I guess they get vision that goes against all the math facts quoted from multiple sources once they buy a 1080p set. This is a classic example of... stop B...Sn yourself!
Taking they are talking about a 50 inch set.

Please see the chart below as to when certain resolutions START to become noticeable!


http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-conten...tion_chart.png

Running Blue Ray... Hummm if you RUN the player at a 1080 setting, the 720p set will display it at the max eye resolution for 10 feet if you have a 50 inch set.

On a closing note, I would like to say to all the 1080p proponents that have agreed to disagree, that I do not hold his comments as reflective of your views.

We have found respect for each other moments, without literally having to reach for Venus!

Wow, longest post I think that I have seen on this forum Sole, good one.

I really don't want to get into whole debate about what the eye can see in arc seconds and what distance your eyes can tell the difference between 720/1080i/1080p.

Having had my 52" LCD for about 8 months now and a 1080p upconverting player for about 1.5 months, I have some personal obsevations.

1. Having spent the money for the player (Oppo 981) it does have allot of good features and is probably the best that I have ever owned. That having been said, I can't see where having the 1080p output has gained me any more detail than 1080i

2. 720 is good, but 1080i/p is just a slight bit better. Again, I do not know if it was worth it or not. The difference is not really noticable from my couch.

3. SD on cable can be OK or crappy. Things that I have noticed about SD are that bad signal or maybe just bad equipment at the broadcast/filming site/cable co seems to play a much more important role than the set itself.

4. Someone will surely correct me on this, but I think that until I have a source that was actually filmed digitally in 1080 and transfered lossless to a meduim that I can then play at 1080p, only then will I be able to tell the real benefits of 1080p. But that is why I bought the 1080p set to begin with, the future.

My 2 cents.

Glad to see my post had such an impact on you My statement is correct, as other amateur astronomers can attest.




I didn't realize I was pushing such a hot button. To me, research doesn't involve reading a post by one reviewer, out of context. I write image processing algorithms for the medical industry for a living. I have a Ph.D. in optics and semiconductors. I was sharing my own knowledge about image processing. I simply said that a proper scale-up algorithm produces a great image (not as good as 1:1 pixel mapping, but very nice), but scaling-down is difficult to do well. Scale down produces artifacts (choose either moire/aliasing or extra softening), unless the source image was so soft that it never had high frequency detail to begin with. Of course, scale-down reduces resolution (implied by definition). I am not an expert on what TVs use what algorithms. There may be a reason why people pay money for professional scalers. I'm merely stating the technical limitations of each.

It is true that a 480p signal can look nice when downsampled from a 1080p signal. However, the scaler has to make a choice of slightly softening the image, or allowing aliasing and moire through. It is much easier to choose the latter, as it requires a smaller kernel, and much of the source data doesn't have a lot of high spatial frequencies that will alias. In other words, much of the high-def hype is a scam, because most images are much softer than they need to be. Yes, the image can look quite sharp (though aliased). However, the image is still 480p. It isn't 1080p any more, and has lost resolution. Give me the 1080p original, thanks. Whatever my eye's internal built-in blur is, it doesn't cause the artifacts or extra softening that a scale-down to 480p would.


I intend to use a high quality HD source. And with such a thing, my eyes and brain will pull out as much detail as they are capable of. With a 720p scale-down, I can guarantee moire artifacts on certain scenes. When I get my 1080p set, I'll be sure to let you know if I feel I've wasted my money.

I am neither desperate, nor a fanboy. I just want the best image. Forums are about debate.