View Full Version : 1080p or 720p good enough?
I'm looking to pick up a LCD (or Plasma) television. I've read many sites claiming 720p is fine for what is being broadcast today.
Now I currently watch mostly Standard Def TV, although I probably will get HD from my cable subscriber once I get a TV. Or hope there's some over the air stuff I can grab for free.
No Blu-Ray or PS3 yet, but I'm thinking perhaps down the road if and when the price drops.
For now a cheap upconverting standalone DVD player should suffice.
Plus, I would love to integrate AppleTV one day.
Would love to know what everyone thinks about 720p? Are 1080p broadcasts headed our way soon? Also has anyone used their 1080p TV as a computer display?
I'm in this same boat, and am leaning towards 1080p, just for a bit of future proofing. I'd also like to run a Mac mini on it as our main home server, and the extra resolution would be handy, but not critical.
But of course, it's all just justifications to buy a bigger, shinier toy. ;)
Yeah future proofing. That's what all the sales people keep telling me. :devil:
But yes, I'm leaning 1080p too. I guess it's whether or not the extra $500 is worth it or not. Spread over the lifetime of the TV, I suppose it's not so great.
And hopefully that lifetime is at least 5-7 years.
That said, I hear 4K TV sets are on their way. ;)
I went 1080p for the future proofing even though my cable company only brodcasts in 1080i. My friend bought a 720p about a year and a half ago and is looking for 1080p now, but it may just be to get the best of what's out there. If you're going to wonder about it later you might as well go for the full HD.
IMO, 1080p isn't really necessary yet. There isn't enough content out there in 1080p to justify it really. But for futureproofing, absolutely, eventually more and more content will be available in 1080p.
And HDTV content in 720p looks great on a good TV (assuming a good source).
I've read that for anything under 52", the difference viewing normal movies is negligible. There is only really a single reason to go to the 1080p and that's when you want to use your TV as a computer monitor.
I do think all of us here would put that on a list of things we'd like to do, though, so I highly recommend the 1080p. ;)
Yeah future proofing. That's what all the sales people keep telling me. :devil:
But yes, I'm leaning 1080p too. I guess it's whether or not the extra $500 is worth it or not. Spread over the lifetime of the TV, I suppose it's not so great.
And hopefully that lifetime is at least 5-7 years.
I figure a 720p set will have a lifetime under 5 years in my house, easily, (probably more like 2-3,) while a 1080p may last 10. The new G11 Panasonic plasma displays have a 100khr halflife on the brightness. That's just insane. and a 30k:1 *native* contrast ratio is nothing to sneeze at. If they hadn't just announced their next-gen tech due in Q4 2009 or Q1 2010, I'd think it was the bee's knees. (Half the power usage, 1" thick, >50k:1 native contrast ratio. Eek.)
That said, I hear 4K TV sets are on their way. ;)
Yeah, Panasonic has that 150" 4k monster... I'm sure it's in our price range. *cough*
I've read that for anything under 52", the difference viewing normal movies is negligible.
I think it depends on how close you sit. :D
At 42", the distance for most average people to *definitively* pick out individual pixels in 1080p is around 5-6'. At 50", it increases to about 8'. In either case, that's pretty blasted close. We have about a 9' viewing distance in our current place, and a 720p should be indistinguishable from a 1080p given that, but that hasn't been my experience checking them out in person.
There's a lot to be said for just going with what looks better to your eye, at the distance that you're going to be viewing it. After dragging my wife to various stores, she said she much preferred the 1080p over the 720p, across the board. The thing is, not only did I not tell her which were which, she wasn't even clear on the difference after I told her, other than "1080p is supposed to be... better, right?" Then again, she has phenomenal vision, so it's entirely possible that she was seeing distinct differences at 10' on the 42".
Yeah, Panasonic has that 150" 4k monster... I'm sure it's in our price range. *cough*
I also noticed they're coming out with some 46" plasmas. This is great since I've always felt 42" was a tad small (futureproofing again for my home theatre one day), and 50" was too big (for my current small living room).
Yup, yup. I'm currently looking at their 46" G11 model as my leading contender.
alcimedes
2008-02-25, 12:19
If you were to take the money you save buying a 720p TV now vs. a 1080i TV, you could probably buy *another* 1080i TV in 3 years when the prices drop through the floor.
I still check the price of my model, and it's down about 25% of the price I paid 16 months ago. (which was about 20% less than the average selling price when I was looking) The biggest surprise is the lack of new innovation has gotten folded in to HD since I took the plunge.
Is it just the nature of the TV business? The units seem to be configured pretty much the same as they were a couple of years ago.
If you were to take the money you save buying a 720p TV now vs. a 1080i TV, you could probably buy *another* 1080i TV in 3 years when the prices drop through the floor.
So... you're not going to be buying a computer ever again either? ;)
Seriously, you can wait forever, or you can buy when the price hits a point you're happy with. For me, the magic number is $1500. The units coming out this year are bright enough, long-lived enough, and have high enough contrast at that price that I can take the plunge. Sure it's a losing proposition - electronics always are.
Is it just the nature of the TV business? The units seem to be configured pretty much the same as they were a couple of years ago.
Seems to be. The tech improves slightly each year, the prices drop considerably.
alcimedes
2008-02-25, 13:02
For the same reason I won't spend $4k on a computer now to get something 20% faster than the $800 model, I won't do it with TV's either, especially when the prices are dropping through the floor.
Seems to be. The tech improves slightly each year, the prices drop considerably.
I prefer the prices staying roughly the same but the gear getting cooler model, of the computer world.
Buy the way Satchmo, don't buy a plasma unless you can ensure it be seen in a room that can be made dark.
1080p isn't worth the price if your viewing distance to screen width ratio is high, which in most cases, it is.
In that case, it doesn't really matter what your content is, you won't notice more than a *very* negligible difference.
Along the lines of this, why is 1080p that much better than 1080i? Aside from being used as a computer monitor, can the difference really be seen 7' back from a <50" TV?
Next up, most people in this thread are talking about plasma, so why would I want a plasma over an LCD? Or vice versa?
I prefer the prices staying roughly the same but the gear getting cooler model, of the computer world.
Same thing - if $4k bought you a 42" high-end plasma four years ago, but buys you a 65" high-end plasma now that is much, much better, then for the same price, you get cooler gear. Or, if that 42" plasma four years ago cost you $4k, but a low-end 42" now (with about the same display quality as the one from four years ago) costs you $1k, that's approximately the same gear for 1/4 the price. Just different ways of looking at the same curve. :)
Buy the way Satchmo, don't buy a plasma unless you can ensure it be seen in a room that can be made dark.
:err: Not my experience with the plasmas of the last 2-3 years. (It certainly used to be a concern.) They are nearly as bright as the LCDs, with much better contrasts.
I'd give that advice for a projector, but it's not a serious concern for the latest plasmas, unless you're putting them in direct sunlight.
Along the lines of this, why is 1080p that much better than 1080i? Aside from being used as a computer monitor, can the difference really be seen 7' back from a <50" TV?
Next up, most people in this thread are talking about plasma, so why would I want a plasma over an LCD? Or vice versa?
I wrote off plasmas three years ago, when the LCDs started driving the prices down considerably. The plasma technology, however, has improved *so* rapidly that it's a serious contender, IMO, strictly on price/performance. Each has its own strengths, of course, but from what I'm seeing, a 2008 plasma is an equal candidate with a 2008 LCD, quality-wise, and in the larger screen sizes, the plasma tends to be a wee bit cheaper. (LCDs have a *steep* price-vs.-square-inches curve, while plasmas have a flatter curve, but a higher entry point.)
Along the lines of this, why is 1080p that much better than 1080i? Aside from being used as a computer monitor, can the difference really be seen 7' back from a <50" TV?The "i" stands for interlaced while "p" stands for progressive scan. Essentially, an "i" resolution draws every other line of a frame in (IIRC) 1/(frame rate*2) of a second and then the rest of the lines in the next 1/(frame rate*2), creating an image with the correct frame rate. It's a sketchy explanation, and my details might be off. Progressive scan draws the entire frame at once.
Some say that 1080i = 540p.
Visually, the difference is that 1080i appears more film-like than 720p. I'm not sure if this still holds true, but sports are generally broadcast at 720p while movies and such are at 1080i. This may have changed since then, and will certainly change as 1080p moves in.
My advice would be to get a 720p unit at that distance with that size.
http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/calculator.htm
It's designed for calculating projector throws, but the information is still valuable for other systems.
Of course, I still say front projection can't be beat. :p
I've read that LCD is better in rooms that have more light and plasma in rooms that are darker...
...but for me, I like the look of LCD displays better when I compare the two.
You don't need a dark room for all plasma sets, I have a Pioneer 5070 in my front den. The picture is perfect and I really like the wide viewing angle it affords me.
Picked up a 46" Sony LCD set 2 weeks ago for the bedroom, too big for the space but that's another story.
Anyway, I put the 720p Pioneer set and the 1080p Sony set side by side and powered up my DTV hd service. I would say that on the channels broadcasting in 1080i I noticed a difference here and there but for a lot of the 720p or HD light stations there was no noticeble difference.
I'm skipping buying a BR set because I see no need for it so I can't tell you if I would see a difference when watching a BR movie. So far I've watched Blades of Glory off the AppleTV on the 720p set, next up I'll watch 300 on the 1080p set and report back if I see a difference.
Till then I have to deal with a gf saying told you so about the 40" set being plenty big enough for the MBR. :devil:
Edit - as for brightness. All the sets arrive with the brightness turned all the way up, the first thing you should do after unpacking your unit is adjust all the settings.
I'd give that advice for a projector, but it's not a serious concern for the latest plasmas, unless you're putting them in direct sunlight.
Which is what I meant, If I had a plasma where my LCD is it would be unwatchable in the morning, then how would I watch my Regis & Kelly?
Well I wouldn't put an LCD in direct sunlight either. :)
For what it's worth...
I ended up getting the Sony KDL-40V3000 and I'm very happy with it.
One thing though, I have a 1st gen 1.25 Ghz G4 mini hooked up to it and while it runs the 1920x1080 desktop just fine, it's unable to handle video if playing through anything but Quicktime (i.e. VLC), and it's unable to display the more intensive iTunes visualizations. When I say unable to, I mean it just shows static slowly scanning down the screen.
So, for that reason, I have the mini set to 720p. I do plan on buying a PS3 here in the near future so I'm looking forward to taking advantage of the full 1080p. The 1080i channels we get here (only four of them, no 1080p or 720p) look great.
One thing though, I've found it's almost impossible to know whether you'll be happy with a particular TV at the store or not. Try and buy from someplace where you know they'll have no problems taking it back and exchanging it for something else if you're not happy with it. If you've got a place like that, then just grab the one you like (price, brand, design, features) and take it home to see if you're happy with the picture.
Anyway, I put the 720p Pioneer set and the 1080p Sony set side by side and powered up my DTV hd service.
From what I've seen with other people's units, the quality of compressed HD services from cable or dish vary *wildly*. There are some 'HD' signals that I swear have more pixellation than my SD digital cable service. Some, OTOH, are very nice and crisp. I wouldn't use such a signal for benchmark... of course, if it's all you watch, then it could give you a 'good enough' metric for your own personal use, but it's not likely to give you any information about the relative *potential* of the two screens. For that, you're going to want the cleanest 1080p signal you can get, then try them out and see if there's a difference.
From what I've seen with other people's units, the quality of compressed HD services from cable or dish vary *wildly*. There are some 'HD' signals that I swear have more pixellation than my SD digital cable service. Some, OTOH, are very nice and crisp. I wouldn't use such a signal for benchmark... of course, if it's all you watch, then it could give you a 'good enough' metric for your own personal use, but it's not likely to give you any information about the relative *potential* of the two screens. For that, you're going to want the cleanest 1080p signal you can get, then try them out and see if there's a difference.
I use DTV because they have the most HD offerings in the nation. Cable doesn't come close out here on LI.
Er, I wasn't criticizing your choice of provider, I was simply saying that using a heavily compressed HD signal isn't going to give you a realistic view of the actual performance differences between 720p and 1080p. It will only give you an idea of how they perform with that particular signal. They may look the same (effectively signal quality < 720p), they may look roughly the same (720p< signal <1080i), or the 1080p may look quite a bit better... but I really doubt that given the signal.
Pumping something like a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD feed from a good player may show off the differences, depending on the viewing environment, but the DTV signal isn't likely to give you much information that would be of use to anyone else.
It's all pretty damned subjective. :)
Er, I wasn't criticizing your choice of provider, I was simply saying that using a heavily compressed HD signal isn't going to give you a realistic view of the actual performance differences between 720p and 1080p. It will only give you an idea of how they perform with that particular signal. They may look the same (effectively signal quality < 720p), they may look roughly the same (720p< signal <1080i), or the 1080p may look quite a bit better... but I really doubt that given the signal.
Pumping something like a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD feed from a good player may show off the differences, depending on the viewing environment, but the DTV signal isn't likely to give you much information that would be of use to anyone else.
It's all pretty damned subjective. :)
Of course throwing a BR player into the source equation assumes your tv can really handle the frame rate.
My Sony can but a lot of sets out there can not.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/02/21/can-your-hdtv-even-properly-display-1080p24/
List of sets from AVS forum
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13167876
Dorian Gray
2008-02-28, 15:18
As has been said, to appreciate the full impact of 1080p/i you must sit close enough to resolve the detail on the screen. The distance will vary a bit depending on your eyesight and screen size, but is generally much closer than most people realise (i.e. a few feet unless your screen is truly huge).
The beauty of a high-res screen is that you can sit close enough to it to make the angle subtended by the screen to your eye similar to that of the cinema, without experiencing excessive pixelation. The beauty of a big screen is that you can get that angular size at a relaxed viewing distance, one benefit of which is to allow more people to participate in the viewing experience.
You don't need a dark room for all plasma sets
But you do need a dark room to benefit from the high contrast ratios of modern plasmas. These screens get their huge contrast ratios by making blacks blacker, not by making highlights brighter. In a bright room the screen reflects light from the room, greatly reducing your ability to discern details in the dark areas of the screen.
In fact, a 4,000:1 contrast ratio covers about 12 photographic stops, which you haven't a hope of seeing unless your room is very dark. In a normally lit room you'll probably not see more than 500:1 and maybe substantially less. In a sunlit room (!) the contrast will diminish further.
Regarding contrast ratios like 15,000:1 or 30,000:1, those will be invisible unless you paint your walls black and impose a total blackout (no glowing LEDs or stray light anywhere, etc.). Even then, 30,000:1 is about 15 stops and that's more than the instantaneous dynamic range of the human eye (which is less than 10,000:1 or about 13 stops, even in ideal conditions).
(Of course your eye can adjust to gather information over a much wider dynamic range: something like 10,000,000:1 or about 23 stops. But this is not possible at one moment in time, so is useless for all movie/television content that I've ever seen.)
One of the better print films used for distributing films to cinemas is Kodak's Vision 2383/3383 (http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/print/2383.jhtml). Here is its characteristic curve according to Kodak, showing the maximum density range of the film:
http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/motion/products/lab/f002_1254ac.gif
1 stop = 0.3 log D, so the maximum possible contrast ratio that this print film can depict is about 13 stops, or 8,000:1 (i.e. 2^13). In a real cinema, even a good one that avoids the seven deadly sins of projection (http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/newsletters/archived/pytlak/sins.pdf) (very rare in my experience :(), lens flare will reduce contrast by another stop or so, down to about 4,000:1. Average cinemas with glowing exit signs/safety lights, poor projection techniques (minimum wage projectionists!) dirty prints, etc., probably don't get better contrast ratios than about 1,000:1. Yet most people don't complain.
The moral of this story is that ultra-high contrast ratios are a red herring because they're almost impossible to achieve in practice even if the display is genuinely capable of them.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.