[pisquano]

hi hi there

I have a 1366*768 Bravia TV (32") and I bought a Panasonic HDC TM 300 full HD


when I playback the footage I am not super-impressed.


could it be because the Bravia is not FULL hd?

some people say the difference between 720 and 1080 shouldn't be noticeable on a 32" but the doubt remains....

(same doubt is when I watch blurays)

 

[Shadow_7]

The difference is noticeable. Not dramatic, but noticeable. Maybe not if you're over 50, but still. More information is almost always preferred. Tossing info out is always easier than making up semi-accurate info on the fly. Screen size is also relative to viewer location. If it's a computer monitor, you're probably 3' out. If it's a TV in the living room you're probably 12' out. Big difference.

 

[Tom Gull]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow_7 /forum/post/18240470


The difference is noticeable. Not dramatic, but noticeable. Maybe not if you're over 50, but still. More information is almost always preferred. Tossing info out is always easier than making up semi-accurate info on the fly. Screen size is also relative to viewer location. If it's a computer monitor, you're probably 3' out. If it's a TV in the living room you're probably 12' out. Big difference.

I agree (and I'm over 50 - it's all about your glasses or contacts). There's a lot less info onscreen at 720 (if I remember correctly, a 720p frame contains about half the pixels of a 1920 x 1080 one).


I even saw noticeable differences between my HC7 at 1440 x 1080 and the CX12 or 500V at 1920 x 1080. In fact, to me, the differences in quality based on resolution are far more apparent than any interlaced vs progressive differences which is what most people seem to fuss about.

 

[Suntan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by pisquano /forum/post/18239987


when I playback the footage I am not super-impressed.

Could you qualify this a little more? Not impressed relative to other consumer camcorder footage you’ve seen on other TVs? Or relative to the last Riddly Scott movie you saw at the theater or on Blu Ray?


Simply put, there is *a lot* more than just resolution that goes into making compelling looking video (lighting being the most important, imo.) If you are just recording family moments at shoulder height while they are going on around you, don’t be surprised that the video will look a little dull, even at high resolution.


As for the TV itself, my opinion is that 720 is more than enough for the average sized TV when sitting across the average livingroom. So if you are sitting across the room looking at an average sized TV, then jumping up to 1080 won’t do much for you in this instance.


-Suntan

 

[pisquano]

sorry guys


what I meant is that I use a full HD camera on the 1080 settings (best quality) but I play it back on a 720 screen (my bravia)


my question is: will a full HD footage look much nicer on a full HD screen (1080 screen) or will the difference if I instead watch it on a 720 screen be negligeable...


when I got my TV I thought it was full HD but then realised it was not...

 

[Suntan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by pisquano /forum/post/18240703


my question is: will a full HD footage look much nicer on a full HD screen (1080 screen) or will the difference if I instead watch it on a 720 screen be negligeable...

How close are you sitting to this screen when you watch your video? Is your face right up a foot away from it, 3 feet away while sitting in a chair? 5 feet? Across the room 10 to 14 feet away?


It makes a big difference how close you are to it.


-Suntan

 

[dustindu4]

If it was me I would film in full 1080 because you're not going to have 720 forever.

 

[pisquano]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dustindu4 /forum/post/18240873


If it was me I would film in full 1080 because you're not going to have 720 forever.

my question is actually about the screen, not the camcorder


I always shoot in full 1080


I normally sit approx 3 meters from the screen (it's in front of my bed)

 

[guy80]

that will depend on the quality of scaling whether your TV does it or you have a capable receiver. Typically feeding it 720 (native res) will typically look better unless a good scaler is in your equipment rack.



Agreed with the sentiment of taking 1080 for furture record...hard to reshoot some stuff.

 

[dustindu4]



Quote:
Originally Posted by pisquano /forum/post/18241118


my question is actually about the screen, not the camcorder


I always shoot in full 1080


I normally sit approx 3 meters from the screen (it's in front of my bed)

right but what I mean is if you are filming something, I would film it in 1080 no matter what. If you filmed it in 720, and later on when you get a 1080 TV you will be pissed it wasn't filmed in 1080 when you watch it on the new TV. that's what I meant

 

[Suntan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by pisquano /forum/post/18241118


I normally sit approx 3 meters from the screen (it's in front of my bed)

Unless one of your ancestors was a hawk or an eagle, you're never going to see any difference from 1080 vs 720 at 3 meters back from a 32" TV.


Take solice that your TV is giving you as good of a picture as you will get for the scenario, and lament that your camcorder and/or shooting style is letting you down.

-Suntan

 

[Tom Gull]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan /forum/post/18241909


Unless one of your ancestors was a hawk or an eagle, you're never going to see any difference from 1080 vs 720 at 3 meters back from a 32" TV.


Take solice that your TV is giving you as good of a picture as you will get for the scenario, and lament that your camcorder and/or shooting style is letting you down.

-Suntan

I'm kind of skeptical of these statements. I think there's a resolution / viewing curve involved and you're coming down on the side of saying he's too far away for the resolution to make a difference. I know I could easily see the difference between my 1920 x 1080 27" PC monitor and its 1024 x 768 22" predecessor. The viewing distance would probably be about 1 meter there. And the 1920 x 1080 TV would have about twice the pixels of the 720 one, I think. I know 32" seems small by big LCD standards, but we're talking bigger than most huge TVs were 30 years ago (remember when 19" and 25" ones were the biggest you'd find in a living room - OK, remember I'm over 50).


It just seems counterintuitive that a 1080i signal displayed on a 1080i TV would look virtually equivalent to a 1080i signal displayed on a 720 TV, even given the distances and sizes. The only empirical evidence we have so far is the one poster saying the video underwhelmed him. I don't think we can firmly rule out the TV resolution as a part of that.

 

[Suntan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull /forum/post/18243337


I'm kind of skeptical of these statements.

I’m only giving my opinions. But I have done a lot of personal investigation on the subject, both for my own personal video watching, as well as investigating the requirements for various resolutions needed to properly display still images (both print and displayed on screen.) I stand by my opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull /forum/post/18243337


I think there's a resolution / viewing curve involved and you're coming down on the side of saying he's too far away for the resolution to make a difference.

That’s exactly what I’m saying.


32” 720 TV at approx 9 feet back will look the same as an identical 1080 TV if the only difference is resolution.


Further, I’m not alone with this notion, this is a good read through on the subject. The actual webpage discusses setting up a much larger viewing area, but the numbers and graphs show what is considered as needed for viewing distances and resolutions incorporating “normal” sized TVs up to large screens (long story short, SMPTE and THX suggest that 480p is enough at this particular ratio of screen size to viewing distance.)

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull /forum/post/18243337


I know 32" seems small by big LCD standards, but we're talking bigger than most huge TVs were 30 years ago (remember when 19" and 25" ones were the biggest you'd find in a living room - OK, remember I'm over 50).

Those big ‘ol 25” TVs of yesteryear where also pumping out only 1/6 the resolution of today’s 1080 TVs. Further, due to the change in aspect ratio, the actual screen space of the “bigger” 32” TVs is only about 1.5x the screen area of the old 25 inchers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull /forum/post/18243337


It just seems counterintuitive that a 1080i signal displayed on a 1080i TV would look virtually equivalent to a 1080i signal displayed on a 720 TV, even given the distances and sizes.

That is exactly what the marketing departments of Sony, Samsung, LG and the other TV manufacturers what to hear. It means they are doing their jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull /forum/post/18243337


The only empirical evidence we have so far is the one poster saying the video underwhelmed him. I don't think we can firmly rule out the TV resolution as a part of that.

As I said, only my opinion, however I wouldn’t be pointing fingers at my TV’s resolution because the video I took didn’t wow me. There are a number of places to look first if a person wants better looking video.


-Suntan

 

[Wilson-Flyer]

{To the OP. I have not read the intellectual discussion that procedes this answer}


It's all about the SOURCE material. Period. Always has been.


Will you always have a 720p set? Wouldn't you like to have the best possible source for whatever viewer you may have in the future?

"Hogan's Heroes", for example, was shot on film 40 years ago. We never saw the real quality of it until MArk Cuban showed us what it really looked like on HDNet a few years ago.

 

[Tom Gull]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson-Flyer /forum/post/18244465


{To the OP. I have not read the intellectual discussion that procedes this answer}


It's all about the SOURCE material. Period. Always has been.


Will you always have a 720p set? Wouldn't you like to have the best possible source for whatever viewer you may have in the future?

"Hogan's Heroes", for example, was shot on film 40 years ago. We never saw the real quality of it until MArk Cuban showed us what it really looked like on HDNet a few years ago.

I interpreted his question to be: "should I upgrade my TV to the camcorder's level?" not "should I start filming at lower resolutions because my TV is suggesting it doesn't make a difference?". I assume he has actually moved closer to the TV than 3 yards more than once to see if the picture seems any better and feels that it doesn't.


The easiest way to resolve that would be to view the same film on a good 1920 x 1080 HDTV.


Another possibility that I'm not sure is substantial: if you hook the cam up to the TV via an HDMI cable as opposed to regular A/V or similar cables, isn't the picture quality better?

 

[Shadow_7]

The difference is a bit relative. Futurama probably wont look any / much different between 720p and 1080p. But anything with plaid and hair will have a noticeable difference. More so with proximity and good eyesight.


BTW the Army considered me to have 20/20 vision even though I've worn glasses since I was a teenager. I'm still not required to wear them when driving at almost 40. I had to retest(renew) this past Christmas. I wear them mainly to read street signs at night, or when I'm weed whacking to protect my eyes. To me the difference between 720p and 1080p is the same difference between not wearing my glasses and wearing them. Not enough difference when walking through a building, mowing the lawn, or fishing. But enough if at the rifle range, or driving at night based on sketchy directions. Or wanting to read small fonts on a 720p 15.4" LCD on a laptop. Although most times I can just move closer to the LCD instead of trying to figure out where I hid my glasses this week. Or where the cat hid my glasses.