Why 1080p has no merit, apart from maybe reducing SDE. - Page 3

Remember that Brian noted that he was in the 1% most sensitive to SDE.

Probably the top .1%

For the Mitsu 5000, SDE started to disappear at 1x, completely disappeared at 1.5x. Since I had never before seen an LCD that I didn't hate due to SDE and other factors, the Mitsu 5000 was an astonishing experience to say the least. After coming back two days later to verify what I had seen I ponied up the extra dollars.

But that is why you simply have to preview this equipment personally if you can. Everyone is different. The point is that something like the Epson 720p projector will probably delight 95% of the population at 1.5x screen width.

Brian you should also mention that you compared the Mits 5000 to the Epson 800 (last year's model) and not the latest TW700/810.

You'll be surprised with how good Epson's new MLA (mirco lens array) on the 810 does with reducing SDE. Not many people know this, but with the new MLA, turn the focus ring very slightly and SDE is gone even at 5ft from the screen with no loss in sharpness. It works extremely well.

I still think you made a great choice with the Mits 5000.

Joe

now I'm a bit confused...are you going from 1280 x 960 to 1600 x 1200 on the same monitor which in fact aready essentally is equal or better than 1080P natively regardless of what resolution your showing on it?...see if you can find an old 13' lower resolution svga moniter and display its highest native resolution you would see the difference...The dpi does matter, thats the whole point more dpi more natural realistic look to the image. I am typing this on my 19" 1600 x 1200 native lcd screen and I can say that while I may not be able to see the pixels I can see richer colors and a more punch than my 720p projector showing the same image from the same amount of screen widths away. Because there is more image packed into that screen and less space between pixels and the text looks sharper and yet smoother at the same time.

Just want to throw my 2 cents in on this subject.

Digital projectors making their way into Cinemas (mostly made by Christie) have a maximum resolution of 2048 x 1080. You know how big your movie theater's screen is. This tells me that I would need to have a MUCH bigger screen than my current 92" to even think about justifying 1080p over my present 720p.

I am perfectly happy with my 720p Mits HD1000, to be honest. I can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet: I would much prefer source material, movies etc to start being made in much higher framerates than any higher resolution than they currently are.

90fps 720p > 30fps 1080p any day for me. Unfortunately it doesn't exist yet. And by looking at these forums, it likely never will, since most people seem pretty brainwashed by the industry that higher resolution is most important. (Because increasing resolution is much easier than increasing framerate to get your $)

I think that we have to make the distinction between the relevance of 1080P over 720P material, and the relevance of 1080P over 720P displays. Due to image compression, 1080P material should look better than 720P material, even on a 720P display. Being able to see a difference between 1080P and 720P material on a 720P display, doesn't mean you will see a difference between a 720P and a 1080P display (all else being equal), it just means that with 1080P material, you're actually utilizing the full potential of your 720P display - which you are NOT when watching 720P material...

In other words: Having 1080P material is more important than having 1080P displays.

Considering this topic is controversial, this discussion is pretty civilized. This is one of the main reasons I love this forum. This really helps me in my hunt for a projector and clears up some discussions I have had with friends. Thanks!

ok I think you missed the point I was trying to make.....your crt has a native resolution thats higher than 1080p so anything you diplay would (unless you left the image smaller and moved in acloser after lowering the res) be scaled up to this res....just like if you showed 720p on a higher native 1080p projector unliss you left it in native mode and backed the projector away more from the screen instead of letting the projector scale it up to 1080p. Without doing this you would still be viewing at a higher resolution because the pixels are smaller (higher DPI)


quote******

The problem with using your observations that the LCD looks better than the projector, to conclude that DPI matters, is that the LCD monitor and projector that you use, are totally different animals. Different brightness, different colors, different everything. You are changing so many variables here that your comparison becomes meaningless. end quote ********

Your exactly right they are totally different aninimals so why are you using a crt monitor to base your opinions projector resolution ....Like you said they are totally different animals.




Trustbucket you do have a good point about the movie theater....I still will look for a 1080p res projector when I look to upgrade my hd70...this way I will just have more of a piece of mind that I'm utilizing every pixel thats availiable to me...This is providing they fall into my $1000 range I set as my capital limit on a new projector....I won't be upgradeing at that time for just the added res but rather the other benifits that would come with a newer DMD chip like higher contrast and completly unnoticable screen door effect...why not if it comes with the package at the right price not strive for the best res I can get....a 5mega pixel camera and a 7 mega pixel camera both deliver the same quality 4x6 print to the naked eye but if I want to print that print at say 24x36 and print it on my wide format hp you can bet I would go with the 7mp camera.

Now I'll admit your over my head here.... But I still think your using comparing apples to orages here. crts and dlp/lcd projectors are just too different and behave differently when feed different resolutions...a projector is not as forgiveing when feed a non native resolution and has to rely on other factors like the scaler. crt's because of dot pitch or whatever just seem to do a better job displaying non native resolution Maybe I'm way off base here...but I'm just going from memory of what I've observed.

Post #21. I also highly recommend viewing the dots image in order to ensure you aren't exceeding the resolution capabilities of your monitor by setting it to extreme resolutions.

high rez would be useful for computer use. both desktop and flight sims using 1080.


as for "movies" esp. DVD - well..............480 is all ya need

I think the way I did it in post #21 is better.

The problem with using a CRT and changing resolutions is that a CRT isn't a fixed pixel device. Whereas a 720 image could use more than one dot per pixel, a 1080 image would not.

The method I used (explained at the bottom of the post) will work with any monitor - CRT or LCD. I may not have been clear enough in post 21, so I'll try to explain it a little better here. In fact, I'm going to try to explain it so clearly that anybody with enough patience to read through all this can do it. I have also explained in detail the process and reasoning behind this method, again at the bottom of the post. This way if there is any debate as to the findings of this particular method, the process and reasoning is spelled out for critique and debate. For this example I will be referring to the Photopshop image:

hdcomp.psd (18.5MB) right-click, and select "save as". Save it wherever you want, but remember where you put it.

I will explain the reasoning behind this method at the end of this post.

First, you need to ensure your monitor is set at a resolution which will allow you to see all the pixels. And so, look at this image:



Here is a larger version of the image.



If you cannot distinguish all these details in the smaller image, your resolution is set too high, and must be lowered. On an LCD monitor set to it's native resolution, the first image should be crystal clear. If the dots seem to blend into one, then your CRT resolution is set too high, and you aren't seeing all the information. If this is happening with an LCD monitor, you are not set to your monitor's native resolution.

Okay, on to the hdcomp.psd file.

In order to view this file correctly, you need software which will not only display .psd images, but which will also allow you to turn the individual layers on and off.

Now that your monitor has been set so that you can distinguish a space between the two dots, open the hdcomp.psd file.

1. Determine how far you should be from your monitor. Since the image is spilling off the sides of the screen, you need to sit a little farther than 1.5X from your screen. Use this table (explanation follows)

Resolution / / Monitor Widths / / equivalent 16x9 Screen Widths
800x600 / / 2.4 / / 1
800x600 / / 3.6 / / 1.5
800x600 / / 4.8 / / 2
1024x768 / / 1.9 / / 1
1024x768 / / 2.8 / / 1.5
1024x768 / / 3.8 / / 2
1280x720/960/1024 / / 1.5 / / 1
1280x720/960/1024 / / 2.25 / / 1.5
1280x720/960/1024 / / 3 / / 2
1600x1200 / / 1.2 / / 1
1600x1200 / / 1.8 / / 1.5
1600x1200 / / 2.4 / / 2
1920x1080 / / Duh
2048x1536 / / .93 / / 1
2048x1536 / / 1.4 / / 1.5
2048x1536 / / 1.86 / / 2

How to use this chart: First, determine the resolution your monitor is set at. For those who are unsure, right-click on your desktop, select "properties", and select the "Display Settings" tab. The resolution should be listed in "Screen Resolution". Don't change it, just remember where it's at.

Now, find your screen resolution in the table above. Now, choose the screen width closest to wherevver you sit (or would sit) from your home theater screen. This is the number in the 3rd column. You can pick either 1 (screen width), 1.5 (screen widths) or 2 (screen widths).

Once you have selected this, look at the number in the second column. This is how far you should sit from your monitor, in screen widths. Use a tape measure to determine the width of your monitor, and multiply by the screen widths to determine how far your eye should be from the monitor.

EXAMPLE:

Screen resolution: 1280x960

Let's say I want to simulate sitting 1.5 screen widths from my home theater screen. So, here is how I determine how far to sit from my monitor when viewing the hdcomp.psd file.

I determined that I want to see what 1.5 screen widths look like. So, in the 8th row of the chart, I find this:

1280x720/960/1024 / / 2.25 / / 1.5

The 2.25 in the second column tells me I need to sit 2.25 screen widths from my monitor in order to simulate a viewing distance of 1.5 screen widths from a 16:9 home theater screen. (remember, the hdcomp.psd file scaled to 100% is spilling off the sides of my screen)

Now, I take a tape measure and measure the width of my monitor.

14 3/8 inches. 3/8 of an inch equals .375 inches. (3 divided by 8)

So, my monitor is 14.375 inches wide, and I need to sit 2.25 screen widths to simulate sitting 1.5 screen widths from a 16:9 image.

14.375 x 2.25 = 32.34375 inches.

For simplicity sake, we'll round down to a nice even 32 inches.

So, I sit so that my eyes are 32 inches from the front of the screen. This will simulate sitting 1.5 screen widths away from a 16:9 image.

2. Seat yourself at the distance you determined in step 1. Open the hdcomp.psd file in Photoshop, or some variant thereof (CS, LE, 3.0, 4.0, etc). If you do not have Photoshop, skip to the ALTERNATE METHOD below.

3. CRITICAL - set the image scaling to 100%. Chances are the edges of the image will be spilling off the screen. This is fine. We don't need to see the whole image all at once in order to do the test.

4. There should be three layers. One labeled "854x480", one labeled "1280x720", and one labeled "background". The background image is 1920x1080. The layer you are seeing when the picture is first opened will be the 854x480 layer.

5.Hide the 854x480 layer. Now you are viewing the 1280x720 layer. Turn the 854x480 layer back on. Toggle it several times, and you should see the clear difference between standard definition and 720x1280.

6. Hide the 854x480 layer. Now hide the 1280x720 layer. You are now viewing the full resolution 1920x1080 layer. Flip the 1280x720 layer on and off several times. Depending on how far you are sitting, you should notice a difference in sharpness. For me, the difference is clear at 1 screen width. The difference is minor at 1.5 screen widths. I haven't tried it at 2 screen widths, but I doubt I would see a difference.

ALTERNATE METHOD

2. Click on the below link. A new window will open with the picture.

hdcomp.jpg

If your resolution is set lower than 1920x1080, the entire picture should NOT fit on the screen. If the image has been re-sized, move your mouse to the lower right corner of the image. A box should appear. Click this box, and the image will be shown at 100% size. If it now spills off your screen and all over your computer desk, this is a good thing.

If the above doesn't work to get the image to display at full size, in Internet Explorer, click on Tools-->Internet Options --> Advanced. Scroll down to the "Multimedia" section. The first option listed should be "Enable Automatic Image Re-Sizing". Uncheck this box and re-load the image. It should now spill off the screen.

3. Simply scroll up and down to view the different images. They are labled for your convenience.


Image Explanation

hdcomp.psd was created using a 2048x1536 image taken with a digital camera (Olymps C3030). This image was then cropped to a resolution of 1920x1080. The resulting image was then saved.

Next, I re-sized the image to 1280x720. After doing this I again re-sized it to 1920x1080 without filtering. This resulted in a slightly pixelated 1920x1080 image. This simulates what a 720x1280 image would look like compared to a 1920x1080 image of the same physical size. This image was saved.

Next, I re-sized the original 1920x1080 image to 854x480, and again re-sized it back up to 1920x1080, again without filtering. The resulting image is even more clearly pixelated. This image was saved.

Finally, I added all three images to one photoshop file so that there are three layers. The top layer being 854x480 scaled up to 1920x1080 without filtering, the second layer being 720x1280 again scaled up to 1920x1080 without filtering, and the third "background" layer being the original 1920x1080 image.

QUESTION 1: Why resize a low resolution image to a high resolution image WITHOUT filtering?

What this experiment is supposed to simulate is three digital projectors which are exactly the same with the exception of resolution. One projector has a native resolution of 854x480. One has a native resolution of 1280x720. One has a native resolution of 1920x1080. If you use the 480p projector on a 100" screen, it will be pixelated. If you use the 1080p projector on the same screen, it will appear smoother.

And so, the 854x480 image was re-sized to 1080x1920 without any sort of filtering in order to simulate what the pixelated image would look like. Likewise with the 1280x720 image.

QUESTION 2: Why not just use three images - 854x480, 1280x720, and 1920x1080, and display them full screen using different monitor resolutions?

The first reason is because a direct comparison using layers in a Photoshop file allows direct instantaneous comparison of each resolution by simply turning a layer on and off. That way we don't have to try to remember what the image looks like while we close the image, go into display properties, set the new resolution, apply the new resolution, and open the new file.

CRT: The reson not to do this with a CRT monitor is because most monitors do not really show all the detail possible at their highest resolution. The image of the two dots near the top of this post demonstrates that. To do this experiment accurately, the monitor MUST be set at a resolution which will resolve all the pixels. If all the pixels are not resolvable, then image detail is lost, and a 1920x1080 image may very well NOT look any better than a 1280x720 image.

This is why in my method the monitor is set at it's optimal resolution, and the images are viewed, even though the entire image is not shown on the screen. This isn't about viewing the entire image, it's about viewing enough of the image to notice detail differences.

LCD: You don't change resolutions with LCD quite simply because they are fixed pixel devices, meaning that no matter what resolution you set your desktop at, you are always seeing the same number of pixels. As such, any resolution higher than your monitor's native resolution will not look any better than it's native resolution.

SCREEN WIDTHS

To determine the values in the table used to determine the distance to be used when viewing the image, some simple mathematics were used. For example:

1024x768 / / 2.8 / / 1.5

The screen resolution and seating distance of 1.5 are given. What needs to be done is the monitor widths (2.8) needs to be extrapolated. In order to do this, you need to determine the ratio between the horizontal image resolution and the monitor resolution. Therefore:

1920 divided by 1024 equals 1.875. This is how wide the overall image is in relation to your monitor. So, if our monitor is 14 inches wide, the actual image would require 26.25 inches (14 times 1.875) of monitor to display as the actual image is 26.25 inches wide.

Now that we know that at 1024x768 the resulting image is 1.875 screen widths, we multiply this number by the desired seating distance. In this case, 1.5 screen widths.

1.875 times 1.5 equals 2.8125, rounded to 2.8 for simplicity sake.

So, if we take our monitor's measured width of 14 inches and multiply by 2.8, we get 39.2 inches, which is the distance we need to sit in order to simulate 1.5 screen widths of the 16:9 image.

To check this, we know that the entire image is 1.875 screen widths wide, or 26.25 inches. If we multiply 26.25 by our desired seating distance of 1.5 screen widths, we get 39.375 inches. The first number we determined for seating distance was 39.2. The difference is because we rounded 2.8125 to 2.8. If we eliminate the rounding and multiply 14 by 2.8125, we indeed get 39.375.

LIMITATIONS

Although I try as accurately as possible to simulate three separate projectors, the test is not perfect. 1 720p pixel does not translate to 4 1080p pixels. Nor does 1 480p pixel translate evenly to 4 720p pixels. Mathematically, 1 720p pixel would be the same size as 2.25 1080p pixels. And 1 480p pixel would be the same size as 2.25 720p pixels, or 5.06 1080p pixels. Unfortunately, digital pictures don't work that way. The end result is that this experiment will not show as much of a detail difference as would be seen in the real world. Ideally we would have a side by side by side comparison of a 480p, 720p, and 1080p projector. But since most of us can't afford to do this, and since projector retailers aren't in the rental business, we have to find alternate means.

I believe the method I listed above is the best means for everybody on this forum to see for themselves if a 1920x1080 projector will offer any benefit for them. (short of buying three separate projectors) It allows direct comparison of three images of the same physical size and resolution, yet three separate levels of detail roughly equivalent to 480p, 720p, and 1080p.

This isn't really true either

When you are viewing 2.35 movies (most hollywood movies) even on a 1080 projector, your peace of mind will have trouble still knowing that around half of your 1080 pixels are being used to display black bars.

A little late to the resolution department, but the real problem is the sources, which only have an effective 800-1300 lines of horizontal resolution, out of 1920. Until we start seeing D5 master tapes with better effective resolution, you really won't see many more REAL details on 1080p than you would 720p - more false detail is, however, very likely. 1080p HD-DVD and Blue-Ray movies are being transcoded from D5 master tapes with very limited effective resolution. The movies with the highest effective resolutions (that hit 1300 lines) are computer animated movies, which aren't subject to the poor sampling being done. That means a 720p projector will pretty much show you all video detail in 1080p movies. HDTV, of course, is even worse. This is why people were having a very difficult time noticing the difference between the Marantz 720p and 1080p units, which have impressive optics.

The discussion, quoted below, starts here. Note that when John talks about lines of effective resolution, he's talking about horizontal lines. I can only assume vertical effective resolution is at the same ratio (which testimonials seem to confirm).






For now, we're limited by the sources, not by the projector resolution. Hope this helps describe what people are seeing! For me, I'd prefer a working Samsung over many 1080p projectors, because I can live with some SDE to get a more accurate image.

huh....what does the black bars have to do with the native res of the actual images within then if the native pixel count is higher across and also more verticaly thand my 720p can display while keeping the same aspect ratio. I mean wouldnt half the 720p pixels be used to display the black bars too going by your opinion?what does that have to do with the res of the actual image being shown?

if we all used this kind of mentality HDTV wouldnt exist......I think either somone has poor eyesight or has never seen first hand the difference between HDTV on a HD display and standard old fashioned dvd on an old fashioned 480p display...Hell why did we even bother going from black and white to color?

Do you guys work for microsoft by any chance?....just sounds a lot like the arguement of why go with the technology that will allow the expansion of being able to fit 50 gb of info on one disc when we can market and sell a much cheaper product with much more limited future capabilities and save a fortune ourselves....while in the longer run still screw you by making you have to upgrade to a newer technology anyway in the near future because ours is in every way except profit wise inferior.....

Does the limitation of the tapes also apply to more recent movies which were recorded digitally, such as the Star Wars movies? Where in the process are these tapes used - between the final cut and the film that makes it's way into theaters, or is it rather something used to get the information to the machines which make the optical media?

Now that's just missing the point completely. Noone (?) is buying 1080P over 720P, to get better picture quality out of DVD's. (If they are, they shouldn't be...) People want 1080P displays, to get the most out of 1080P material.

Again, I believe we have to differentiate material and displays. Material should basically be as high resolution as bandwith allows, no limitations. A higher resolution source will _never_ be a disadvantage - at the most, you won't spot the difference on a given display. Displays are different. In practice, within a given budget, you'll most likely have to choose between resolution and other factors. For instance, choose between 3-chip 720P DLP and 1-chip 1080P DLP. It's not important to get as high resolution as possible - its important that the resolution is _high enough_, to make sure you have a good picture (no SDE etc.).

1:1 mapping, some will say? 1:1 mapping of pixels is _nowhere near_ as important as "1:1 mapping" of colour and gamma.

Maybe you are right - HDTV would not exist. I do know that there is no reason to have an HDTV if one does not have a source to use it with.

I know there is a difference. I have a Phillips CRT direct view 32" HDTV - and it does do 1080 - over the air PBS/CBS offer the best picture in HDTV. I have no cable - so it is free and I enjoy the 7 or so channels I get.

I also have a digital standard res. projector - Optoma H31. It has one use - to watch movies. period.

What kind of movies? well what is there? - i mean really WHAT IS THERE?

1. DVD
2. VHS

DVD is now equal to VHS in selection - this took TEN YEARS.

It will take that long before Bluray/HDDVD shall offer the same selection. until then (and the copyright is cracked) I have zero interest in that format - so anything over 480 is irrelviant to me.

A simply standard definition projector offers the same level of detail that a 1080 ones does when showing a standard run of the mill DVD.

Thus my original statement: 480 rez is enough for movies.

..........................

now for computer use - that is a whole other issue, and one cannot ever have enough "real-estate" on the desktop. 2160 would be great for a PC display.

BTW - I bought a 12" Black and White TV 6=yrs ago for 20-bucks new (made in china - old tech TV-nob and dials - even had UHF up to 88!).

shock of shocks!! quess what? I LIKE B&W TVs - a also have no problem watching B&W movies and old TV shows. I watched the whole TV series Twilight Zone on my projector.

Guess what - never even noticed it had no color.

color is WAY over rated - give me a good show over color anyday.

of course both is good - but rare.

If you only want to watch VHS and DVD, by all means stick with your 480P projector. Nobody told you a 1080P projector makes your VHS look great.What we are discussing here is whether a 1080P projector makes any difference over a 720P projector, _when watching 1080P material_.

Aren't you forgetting that back then the infrastructure was not there to make all those DVDs? Now it is, and the changeover is relatively simple for HD-DVD, but a little more complex for Blu-Ray. It will probably take half that amount of time for the library to become the same. And on top of that, I'm sure most if not all the new movies coming out will be released simultaneously on DVD and HD formats.

As far as cracking copyright, are you advocating video piracy?

Anyhow, for me standard definition isn't enough when watching standard definition. Screen door and pixelation are an issue with standard definition, even at the "proper" 1.5 screen widths. While standard definition material on a high definition display doen't gain any detail, it does get smoother.