Are full resolution LCDs superior to my plasma

AgentSmittie,


I have decided that reading these forums too much can make a person go insane.


There has been so much emphasis on 1080p lately because on paper it sounds like a great thing. Two million pixels vs. one million pixels. More is better....right?


Yes, but it will really only make a difference in big TV's (50" or larger) when sitting close to the screen. In the most recent Sound and Vision magazine they raved about the new Pioneer 50" 1080p panel but said they had to sit six feet away from the screen to enjoy the extra detail.


In a 40" or 42" screen 1080p is really not going to make a big difference. Did you know that a 42" Pioneer plasma actually has a greater pixel density (pixels per square inch) than a 50" Pioneer plasma? Even though the 50" has more overall pixels, the pixels on the 42" plasma are closer together.


I liken this to buying a digital camera. Do you remember when 4MP cameras were all the rage? Now we have 8MP cameras. 8MP is twice the resolution of 4MP. Does that mean an 8MP camera is twice as good? No. Just like TVs, cameras are affected by factors other than resolution - lens, processor, etc.


Now, if you are only printing small 4x6 photos, you would not be able to tell the difference between a 4MP or 8MP camera (especially if I held these photos several feet from your face). If you start to make enlargements and get closer, more pixels is better.


So 1024x768 works fine for a 42" screen at a normal viewing distance of about 8ft. I have looked at 1080p LCDs next to a 768p plasmas and you can not tell the difference in PQ from more than a few feet away.


Why do you think there are no 1080p sets below 40"? Because the added resolution is simply not necessary.


I reseached TVs for about a year and I thought at first that I needed 1080p. I had all but written off plasma in favor of a 1080p LCD...but the more research I did the more I realized there is more to a good TV than resolution. I ended up buying the Pioneer 4270 and couldn't be happier.


My plan is to enjoy my Pioneer until I can afford a 1080p SED TV. Enjoy your plasma and don't drive yourself crazy worrying about 1080p.

Quote:
Wow, quoted for truth. This is pretty much what we were all thinking, but too lazy to type.

lol, so true.


agentsmittie, unless you're going to use the panel as a computer monitor (which even then it's not necessarily all important), having 1080p on a 42" or 43" is just about the least important feature or aspect I would care about.


these are all more important (in that size):


contrast/black level/shadow detail

color rendering

scaling quality

stretch modes

connectivity options

panel aesthetics

I think as long as you don't see any pixel structure 1080p isn't truly necessary. 1080p vs. 720p arguement! The numbers sound really big in difference... but the differences are REALLY subtle in the real world. I mean FREAKING SUBTLE... especially on screens that are 50 inches and below. I stood 6 feet and even closer comparing the 1080p Pio vs. the 768p Elite.


The differences in resolution's benefits wasn't more so the extra detail but the lack of pixel structure (Screen Door Effect). I guess there WAS extra detail on the Pro-FHD1, but it wasn't like "wow... that's totally lights out better everyone would notice".


You'd really have to stick your face in there to see the differences, especially with moving video. And even then, unless you had a 1080p set next to your 768p set... you wouldn't know anyway.


Black Levels, Color, and Contrast. MOST IMPORTANT once you get the 720p range! 480 to 720 is a WAY bigger jump than 720 to 1080p when it comes to normal screen sizes.


Stretch a picture out to 70 inches and more? Then 1080ps benefits will be blatantly visible.

you should know your plasma very well by now right?

just go to a store and have them hook whatever set you want to compare to a familiar source playing familiar material.


it should be pretty clear to you one way or the other.


also i would ask to hook up a really good source as well if you're really serious.

like an hd dvd player if you plan to get one hook that up to both sets and see if you can make out a difference.


everything said on these forums means nothing if your eyes tell you different.


then after seeing for yourself you can spread the news to others in these forums and be lost forever in arguments over technology.

Providing you sit close enough to resolve it, the additional effective resolution (resolvable detail) beyond 1024 horizontally in some HD programs can add considerable impact to viewing enjoyment. That added detail may not appear in lots of productions such as movies, though. So IMO moving to 1080p display can be worthwhile.


But how much of max-resolution 1080i/p actually gets displayed should be factored in, too: seems wise to investigate whether a 1080p display uses so-called 540p bobbing that can halve vertical resolution (see dr1394's sublinks ); or whether it deinterlaces 1080i on a pixel-by-pixel basis or uses algorithms that cause 'resolution pumping' as weaving is applied to crisp-looking static scenes but any motion triggers image blurring from inadequate motion-adaption deinterlacing; or whether there's 24p reverse pulldown for 1080i, with images displayed at 48, 72, 96, or 120 Hz to eliminate motion judder, not just 60p (generally used for deinterlaced 1080/60i video/camera images). -- John

I would agree that a quality 720p display will be as good as a 1080p when compared being fed an equal 1080i source, if that that 720p display can properly deinterlace 1080i. But... when a REAL 1080p source comes out, it should be easy to tell the difference. I have seen a lot of displays running 1080p off a hard drive loop, including the Sammy LCDs, DLPs, Sony's XBR2's and A2000, plus a bevy of other 1080p LCDs and DLP's. The non film sources are STUNNING, I mean really jaw dropping. There is NO way someone can say that there isn't a considerable improvement from a non-film source between 1080i and 1080p. Now considering the new BR or HD DVD player capable of 1080p will be really the only 1080p source for most households and on that watched will be from an original film source it shouldn’t really be that much of a difference from 1080i. At this point, it seems a 1080p panel is really only best for computer use and future gaming. Considering my 360 looks like a slide show during the most graphic intensive scenes (ie Madden's cutscenes) I really think the future of 1080p gaming will be similar to 720p gaming of last generation... only a handful of titles and only half of those actually worth playing. I know PS3 has already produced some but I haven’t personally seen them and for the time being I am just assuming it is some sort of upscale. It all remains to be seen.

Quote:
Perhaps your Sony has problems deinterlacing 1080i?


"When we first received our KDS-60A2000 review sample we noticed that it could not resolve any of the finest details in a 1080i test pattern. When we showed Sony's engineers the failed pattern, they promised to look into it. After issuing a vague preliminary statement that was originally printed here, the company followed up by admitting that some models in the field may indeed be incapable of resolving all of 1080i." http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_KDS_60A...l?tag=txt#more


"Similarly, HD-DVD's vaunted increase in visual and audio fidelity comes with a few buts. Despite the fact that the format supports HD resolutions of up to 1080p, the first wave of hardware--including the Toshiba HD-A1, HD-D1 and HD-XA1, as well as the RCA HDV5000--can output only as high as 1080i. That's not such a big deal, however, since the difference between 1080i and 1080p sources is very difficult to discern on-screen, even with the most cutting-edge hardware."
http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_HD_A...-31736203.html